They're much the same. Roman Senators in fifth century Rome were the wealthy elite; they had formal titles; our elite does not. There are no legal disabilities and privileges dividing society, as there were in the fifth century, but it hardly matters.
In both eras, the dominant "Senators" constructed schemes to loot the wealth everyone else produced. Maybe it was a natural outgrowth of the Roman Empire's conquest-slave society. But it's happened here especially with the explosion of the financial sector--supported by empire, the US and wealthy nation's national banks.
Alan Greenspan helped create the casino financial system, opening the door to Wall Street's "inventions," like Credit Default Swaps, and even, variable interest mortgages, encouraging homeowners to cash in, to gamble, or buy ATV's.
In Roman times, Senators arranged it so they could collect everyone else's taxes, while avoiding taxes themselves. They used their positions and connections in the Imperial bureaucracy to collect all the gold, land and slaves in the empire, impoverishing everyone else. In the US, today, Warren Buffet and his hedge fund colleagues pay taxes, but despite the many millions they earn, they pay at about half the rate of ordinary Americans. Obama and Congress just extended low income tax rates for the wealthy, who already pay lower rates on capital gains, interest, and payroll taxes. They’ve cornered most of the new wealth created since 1975.
In the US, the Fed creates money for the elite: it's been expanding the money supply for decades. Why for the elite? Low interest rates--virtually zero for the banks--allow them to make cost-free profits on the rest of us. Have you ever borrowed money at zero interest? Further, cheap money induces fools (like me) into the stock market, but the sophisticated traders, the ones with "algorithms" and computer programs--and lots of virtually free capital--are the ones who walk away with profits. The rest of us buy high, sell low, and enrich our brokers with fees.
Of course, Wall Street isn't the only reason why US wealth concentrated at a staggering rate since the 1970's. There was the Reagan "revolution," the proliferation of conservative "think tanks" (propaganda sites now fueling Fox News) the Clinton collaboration, W's triumph, and now Obama's compromise/capitulation. With the important exception of Clinton's tax hike on the wealthy, all the rules, all the financial innovations, all the dilution of regulations, were directed toward the enrichment of a tiny elite.
And it has prospered. Wall Street, after the massive government bailouts of 2007-8, has sucked in greater profits, largely from gambling with government money, than it ever did before: in the midst of the Great Recession, with 9.6-18% unemployment, job insecurity, and banks gambling, instead of lending.
We're not out of recession, but we're on our way to another bubble crash. The elite, like 5th century Roman Senators, could capture all the wealth.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
Tax Cuts a Bad Deal
So, the tax-cut compromise is a done deal.
The Republicans were clever; they repeated ad infinitum: don't raise taxes in a recession. But continued tax-cuts for the wealthy will be counterproductive.
We'll have to borrow $700-$800 billion (probably from China or Saudi Arabia) to pay for their lower taxes. But that money will not stimulate the economy. It will buy speculation on the stock market, or investment overseas long before it creates a single job here. It will also exacerbate US inequality. Already the US has one of the most unequal distributions of wealth among developed nations.
Tax cuts for those below $250,000 income, will mostly be spent in the US, on consumer goods, and on homes, creating demand for jobs. Even here, many of the consumer goods would be imports, so many of those dollars will fly out of the country. Leakage of any kind of spending, except direct government expenditures on something like a WPA, is to be expected in an economy as open as ours.
The effects of the tax cuts are not only economic; they are also social. Economic inequality increases social distance. When you have escalating social distance, you lose a sense of community. That's why legislators who have lived lives insulated from economic hardship, elected by money from the wealthy, can credibly threaten to cut off an unemployment extension, or argue that poor rich kids need tax breaks even more than the long-term unemployed need benefits. Further, high inequality is an economic handicap to the nation, since consumption by the wealthy cannot substitute for mass consumption as an economic base for a stable economy; inequality makes economic instability more likely: prosperity depends on a small minority.
Inequality is even a health hazard: inequality of wealth is directly correlated with poorer overall health of the population. This is partly due to unequal access to health care, but is also due to higher levels of anxiety, which extends even to the wealthiest. Why? Greater inequality breeds resentment, crime and violence.
Obama's compromise was a bad deal for everyone. The pre-Bush tax rates for the over $250,000, should have been restored. I think they should be raised, because the top 2% have cornered most of the growth in wealth produced by everyone since 1980. That's why wages have hardly budged since the '70's.
Further, corporations are swimming in cash, and only slowly hiring or loaning out money. So, more money in elite pockets will not promote investment, or create jobs--except maybe in China or Malaysia.
As the recent elections demonstrated, large aggregations of wealth skew the balance of political power. The Compromise illustrates the consequences: a one-year unemployment extension vs two years of high-end tax-cuts and a more unstable economy.
Our equivalent of fifth century Roman Senators has prevailed, to even their ultimate detriment. It is one more step towards our own 476 ( (See: Fall of Rome).
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Next Right-wing Target
They anticipate that their dirty deal with Obama is sealed, and will pass even in the Democratic House. Why Democrats will pass such a monster is another question.
So, right-wingers are pleased about the $700-800 billion in income tax breaks for those who don't need it--people earning over $250,000 a year. They also are moderately pleased with the Estate Tax deal, in which estates under $5 million will be exempt, and the rate above that is lowered to 35%. Actually, many right-wingers want to eliminate the estate tax altogether. They don't call it the "Death Tax" for nothing. Under Bush, they had put in place the budget-busting Medicare Part D, which is lavish to big Pharma, as well as the tax cuts now being renewed.
So, what is their next target? They are mobilizing to prevent the GOP from supporting "compromise" on the debt ceiling. It's currently at $14.3 trillion.
That looks like a large number, and it is, but the US keeps on bumping up against whatever ceiling is current law; it has been for years--except during Clinton's last two years.
Before the Great Recession, the biggest and fastest addition to the debt was during the Bush II administration. Trillions in debt were added from the two unjustified wars, the two rounds of tax cuts and the unfunded Medicare Part D.
The recession, as recessions always do, caused the debt to rise further, because the unemployed and/or defaulted homeowner is unlikely to pay income tax, but aid to both means the government has to borrow. Would it be better to let people starve in the streets? Or sink into a depression?
Right-wingers seem to think so. They don't expect to be the ones who do the starving. They apparently assume that if people don't have jobs, it's their own faults--after all, jobs are listed in newspapers and online, so why aren't people working? They have it too easy with unemployment insurance! Those stupid Democrats wanted unemployment benefits extended; it was the lever Republicans used to get their way.
However, if the government runs out of money, it won't pay unemployment. To stop the government from borrowing will, effectively, stop the government from operating.
Why do right-wingers want this?
There is much rhetoric in right-wing venues about the damage government does. Their assumption is that a coming period of stalemate will be a good thing: it will stop that African Socialist, Obama, from expanding government programs and regulations. It will also demonstrate what right-wingers believe: government can't do anything right. If they can hamstring government until the 2012 election, then right-wingers can regain power.
But they don't appear to care if, in the process, they drive the US into a depression. If they succeed, the US will lose the dollar's reserve status. Then, goodbye American Empire.
So, right-wingers are pleased about the $700-800 billion in income tax breaks for those who don't need it--people earning over $250,000 a year. They also are moderately pleased with the Estate Tax deal, in which estates under $5 million will be exempt, and the rate above that is lowered to 35%. Actually, many right-wingers want to eliminate the estate tax altogether. They don't call it the "Death Tax" for nothing. Under Bush, they had put in place the budget-busting Medicare Part D, which is lavish to big Pharma, as well as the tax cuts now being renewed.
So, what is their next target? They are mobilizing to prevent the GOP from supporting "compromise" on the debt ceiling. It's currently at $14.3 trillion.
That looks like a large number, and it is, but the US keeps on bumping up against whatever ceiling is current law; it has been for years--except during Clinton's last two years.
Before the Great Recession, the biggest and fastest addition to the debt was during the Bush II administration. Trillions in debt were added from the two unjustified wars, the two rounds of tax cuts and the unfunded Medicare Part D.
The recession, as recessions always do, caused the debt to rise further, because the unemployed and/or defaulted homeowner is unlikely to pay income tax, but aid to both means the government has to borrow. Would it be better to let people starve in the streets? Or sink into a depression?
Right-wingers seem to think so. They don't expect to be the ones who do the starving. They apparently assume that if people don't have jobs, it's their own faults--after all, jobs are listed in newspapers and online, so why aren't people working? They have it too easy with unemployment insurance! Those stupid Democrats wanted unemployment benefits extended; it was the lever Republicans used to get their way.
However, if the government runs out of money, it won't pay unemployment. To stop the government from borrowing will, effectively, stop the government from operating.
Why do right-wingers want this?
There is much rhetoric in right-wing venues about the damage government does. Their assumption is that a coming period of stalemate will be a good thing: it will stop that African Socialist, Obama, from expanding government programs and regulations. It will also demonstrate what right-wingers believe: government can't do anything right. If they can hamstring government until the 2012 election, then right-wingers can regain power.
But they don't appear to care if, in the process, they drive the US into a depression. If they succeed, the US will lose the dollar's reserve status. Then, goodbye American Empire.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Wiki-Revolution II
Wikileaks has added a new wrinkle to non-violent protest. Neither Gandhi, nor Martin Luther King could reach so many, to unveil the secrets, of violence and corruption, by so many, over most of the globe. Neither could stop wars, and perhaps wikileaks can't either, but it can certainly reach the masses of people with the information they need, so popular revulsion could stop them. It's possible.
The wikileaks case is radical. Political alliances crumble, and others emerge in unforeseen places, like conservative libertarians and anti-war progressives: Ron Paul insisted that Assange is only the publisher and that nobody was killed by the document dump, compared to the many killed in illegal wars caused by lying, the very thing the documents illustrate. He said if Assange is prosecuted, then the Times and WaPo should be as well. He claimed (as Ellsberg has) that what Assange did was just as legal as Daniel Ellsberg, and the Pentagon Papers. Some claim that Assange is no Ellsberg, but one funny fact is: Ellsberg loudly proclaims that he is.
However, this is bigger than one person. What wikileaks wrought is not simply Assange's creation. As wikileaks' name implies, it involves the cooperation of numberless collaborators all over the world, but it has also awakened a sleeping giant--yes, like Gandhi awakening colonized Indians from their torpor. The counter-offensive, after wikileaks was attacked, on the web and financially, has made people wake up. If you have a computer, and you're enraged at the world as presently constituted, here is a bloodless, even relatively safe, way of expressing your outrage, and perhaps forcing changes. Technology now being what it is, it is entirely possible that a small global movement, say 1 million strong, could force the world's governments to negotiate, to stop their wars, to enforce fair labor laws worldwide, to oppose the power of global corporations, or to act definitively and decisively on global climate change.
Anonymous demonstrates a whole new power, much more direct, non-violent, and populist. Yes, you have to have minimal understanding of computers, and a computer, of course, but computers and computer literacy are like a disease spreading across the globe with lightning speed.
On matters of free speech, and on wars and secrecy, progressives should look around them. As Ron Paul's speech indicates, progressives can find allies in funny places: progressives and libertarians have more in common than they think. There will be more libertarians, and hardly fewer progressives in the next Congress. Think how progressive the free exchange of information could be.
In addition, the resulting generation of hacktavists could make it possible to dismantle The Empire without bloodshed. The US might emulate Britain, peacefully withdrawing, instead of collapsing, like the fall of Rome.
The wikileaks case is radical. Political alliances crumble, and others emerge in unforeseen places, like conservative libertarians and anti-war progressives: Ron Paul insisted that Assange is only the publisher and that nobody was killed by the document dump, compared to the many killed in illegal wars caused by lying, the very thing the documents illustrate. He said if Assange is prosecuted, then the Times and WaPo should be as well. He claimed (as Ellsberg has) that what Assange did was just as legal as Daniel Ellsberg, and the Pentagon Papers. Some claim that Assange is no Ellsberg, but one funny fact is: Ellsberg loudly proclaims that he is.
However, this is bigger than one person. What wikileaks wrought is not simply Assange's creation. As wikileaks' name implies, it involves the cooperation of numberless collaborators all over the world, but it has also awakened a sleeping giant--yes, like Gandhi awakening colonized Indians from their torpor. The counter-offensive, after wikileaks was attacked, on the web and financially, has made people wake up. If you have a computer, and you're enraged at the world as presently constituted, here is a bloodless, even relatively safe, way of expressing your outrage, and perhaps forcing changes. Technology now being what it is, it is entirely possible that a small global movement, say 1 million strong, could force the world's governments to negotiate, to stop their wars, to enforce fair labor laws worldwide, to oppose the power of global corporations, or to act definitively and decisively on global climate change.
Anonymous demonstrates a whole new power, much more direct, non-violent, and populist. Yes, you have to have minimal understanding of computers, and a computer, of course, but computers and computer literacy are like a disease spreading across the globe with lightning speed.
On matters of free speech, and on wars and secrecy, progressives should look around them. As Ron Paul's speech indicates, progressives can find allies in funny places: progressives and libertarians have more in common than they think. There will be more libertarians, and hardly fewer progressives in the next Congress. Think how progressive the free exchange of information could be.
In addition, the resulting generation of hacktavists could make it possible to dismantle The Empire without bloodshed. The US might emulate Britain, peacefully withdrawing, instead of collapsing, like the fall of Rome.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Bloodless Wiki-Revolution
One of the things about the confrontation, wikileaks vs authorities, is that no blood has been spilled.
Despite all the bombast about "endangering Americans and our allies," it's clear that wikileaks and the cooperating news outlets have been very careful to insure no individual will be endangered. People are shown to be corrupt, or brutal, arbitrary or incompetent, but that doesn't kill them. It may shame them, but shame may be justified. Or, they may be embarrassed.
If there is one thing people of large egos fear more than death, it's embarrassment. Almost all political leaders, almost by definition, have large egos.
I said, on my 11/30 blog, that "if people laugh, it's all over." Maybe, that's why there have been such determined offensives by the US, and by some corporations against wikileaks: they could have been modeled on any number of authoritarian regimes. Corporate responses: shutting off donation routes, shutting off accounts, canceling site hosting, may be protective (in case GOP crazies make business with wikileaks into treason). Maybe, as well, they responded because wikileaks is attacking their people, the ones they influence, know and work with: their Generals, administrators, diplomats, Congressmen, Senators, President, the government they support, because it supports them.
It is heartening to know that revolutionary protest isn't confined to France or Thailand, and is possible, in cyber terms, all over the world. And it is strikingly non-violent.
We have enough blood and guts wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, maybe Somalia, Yemen--. So, by contrast, General Assange's master-stroke flew through electronic space, killing no one. Further, his "attack" only makes it more difficult for governments to hide behind secrecy, or to rely on it.
Is that so damaging? Perhaps to people used to exercising power out of the public eye. For them it could be a danger to their careers, at least. There were demands that Hillary resign, when the first State Department cables were released by wikileaks, although the demands have since died down.
Wikileaks emerged into my consciousness a couple of years ago, when "Julian" started sending me documents on Kenyan political corruption, and then classified military handbooks. I was initially startled, because my son's name is Julian. Unfortunately, I couldn't use Assange's documents, so, I joke, "Julian" went to the NY Times, instead!
Wiki-allies' counter-offensive, if only symbolic, like one-day walk-out strikes, demonstrates that there are real populist forces out there in cyber-land, and they aren't toothless. Think about it: if enough people became so discontented that they became hacktivists, if their number grew into the millions, instead of a few thousand, they could bring civilization to its knees! What would they demand? Freedom of information.
Transparency is probably the most democratizing force on the planet, but things may have to fall apart further, before our Roman Senators withdraw their grubby fingers from deep inside our pockets.
Despite all the bombast about "endangering Americans and our allies," it's clear that wikileaks and the cooperating news outlets have been very careful to insure no individual will be endangered. People are shown to be corrupt, or brutal, arbitrary or incompetent, but that doesn't kill them. It may shame them, but shame may be justified. Or, they may be embarrassed.
If there is one thing people of large egos fear more than death, it's embarrassment. Almost all political leaders, almost by definition, have large egos.
I said, on my 11/30 blog, that "if people laugh, it's all over." Maybe, that's why there have been such determined offensives by the US, and by some corporations against wikileaks: they could have been modeled on any number of authoritarian regimes. Corporate responses: shutting off donation routes, shutting off accounts, canceling site hosting, may be protective (in case GOP crazies make business with wikileaks into treason). Maybe, as well, they responded because wikileaks is attacking their people, the ones they influence, know and work with: their Generals, administrators, diplomats, Congressmen, Senators, President, the government they support, because it supports them.
It is heartening to know that revolutionary protest isn't confined to France or Thailand, and is possible, in cyber terms, all over the world. And it is strikingly non-violent.
We have enough blood and guts wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, maybe Somalia, Yemen--. So, by contrast, General Assange's master-stroke flew through electronic space, killing no one. Further, his "attack" only makes it more difficult for governments to hide behind secrecy, or to rely on it.
Is that so damaging? Perhaps to people used to exercising power out of the public eye. For them it could be a danger to their careers, at least. There were demands that Hillary resign, when the first State Department cables were released by wikileaks, although the demands have since died down.
Wikileaks emerged into my consciousness a couple of years ago, when "Julian" started sending me documents on Kenyan political corruption, and then classified military handbooks. I was initially startled, because my son's name is Julian. Unfortunately, I couldn't use Assange's documents, so, I joke, "Julian" went to the NY Times, instead!
Wiki-allies' counter-offensive, if only symbolic, like one-day walk-out strikes, demonstrates that there are real populist forces out there in cyber-land, and they aren't toothless. Think about it: if enough people became so discontented that they became hacktivists, if their number grew into the millions, instead of a few thousand, they could bring civilization to its knees! What would they demand? Freedom of information.
Transparency is probably the most democratizing force on the planet, but things may have to fall apart further, before our Roman Senators withdraw their grubby fingers from deep inside our pockets.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Come-on to Apocalypse
Today, I got a letter, no heading, from the "President of the Sovereign Society." She has a website: she spells the nation, "Amerika," as in escape from! She sells a how-to to gain dual citizenship and more.
These missives come from a conservative publishing group: I recognize the MO.
Many trot out tired bromides of the right, but this one is revealing. It lays out the dream of would-be capitalists, who scream loudest about Freedom, and: America has been ruined (by that Socialist Obama and that cowboy, W). Astoundingly, Erika is selling "government health programs and FREE prescriptions," while you "live like royalty for less than $390 a week;" the four countries most affordable for retirees; how you can gain business and tax benefits with dual citizenship, and so on.
Other newsletters in the network provide interesting stock analysis and questionable advice, but the MO is telling. It never lays out something for you to read, until after you subscribe. They give a presentation: a rolling script, while a voice hypes the argument. You can't move forward or back; it forces you to hear each agonizing minute if you want to figure out what they're selling. If you try to cancel, it yells at you, in print--or voice over it--that you mustn't give up this chance NOW! Every time I've watched one, it concludes by selling a subscription to another, more specialized newsletter that will: solve all your health problems, or make you rich, instantly, protect you from the coming apocalypse, or, in this case, sell you a newsletter for fleeing the United States. The subscriptions go upwards from the $35 for an extended advertisement for other newsletters, to several thousand for the "elite" stock advice sheets.
Having received one for free and then another for $35 (deductible as an expense), I can see a pattern. First of all, a significant share of the financial advice is either to buy gold, since everything will collapse soon, or oil, the more polluting the better. Some recommendations are interesting, but when I check the buy figures, they're almost always late--buy below $6.50, when it hasn't been below $6.50 for weeks. The newsletters are sparing of real recommendations, but lavish in selling other newsletters.
Their star economic commentator, a Brit, gives scornful analysis of the US economy; he lives in Taiwan.
There is something this audience shares with the left: a conviction that the US is in inevitable decline. However, they are sanguine about it--and eager to exploit it. Then, as reward, there are "over 80 beautiful, get-away countries," where you could establish residency, and maintain "your personal privacy and affluence."
They are wannabe Roman Senators; Roman Senators buried their gold before Rome's "fall." Afterwards, the barbarians tortured them to get it for themselves.
These missives come from a conservative publishing group: I recognize the MO.
Many trot out tired bromides of the right, but this one is revealing. It lays out the dream of would-be capitalists, who scream loudest about Freedom, and: America has been ruined (by that Socialist Obama and that cowboy, W). Astoundingly, Erika is selling "government health programs and FREE prescriptions," while you "live like royalty for less than $390 a week;" the four countries most affordable for retirees; how you can gain business and tax benefits with dual citizenship, and so on.
Other newsletters in the network provide interesting stock analysis and questionable advice, but the MO is telling. It never lays out something for you to read, until after you subscribe. They give a presentation: a rolling script, while a voice hypes the argument. You can't move forward or back; it forces you to hear each agonizing minute if you want to figure out what they're selling. If you try to cancel, it yells at you, in print--or voice over it--that you mustn't give up this chance NOW! Every time I've watched one, it concludes by selling a subscription to another, more specialized newsletter that will: solve all your health problems, or make you rich, instantly, protect you from the coming apocalypse, or, in this case, sell you a newsletter for fleeing the United States. The subscriptions go upwards from the $35 for an extended advertisement for other newsletters, to several thousand for the "elite" stock advice sheets.
Having received one for free and then another for $35 (deductible as an expense), I can see a pattern. First of all, a significant share of the financial advice is either to buy gold, since everything will collapse soon, or oil, the more polluting the better. Some recommendations are interesting, but when I check the buy figures, they're almost always late--buy below $6.50, when it hasn't been below $6.50 for weeks. The newsletters are sparing of real recommendations, but lavish in selling other newsletters.
Their star economic commentator, a Brit, gives scornful analysis of the US economy; he lives in Taiwan.
There is something this audience shares with the left: a conviction that the US is in inevitable decline. However, they are sanguine about it--and eager to exploit it. Then, as reward, there are "over 80 beautiful, get-away countries," where you could establish residency, and maintain "your personal privacy and affluence."
They are wannabe Roman Senators; Roman Senators buried their gold before Rome's "fall." Afterwards, the barbarians tortured them to get it for themselves.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Obama: Ordinary Politician
The American people have been betrayed. An election stolen; a popular election and a surge of hope: hope disappointed; another election bought.
Obama perpetuates the failing policies of the past: he depends on "experts" from the past. While he could give inspirational speeches as a candidate, he's a pedagogue as President, rarely a fighter. He went from talking about changing the dialogue, to repeating it.
Obama is now going to cut (government) workers wages to trim the deficit, while unemployment is high and borrowing is dirt-cheap. Wage-cuts will slow down the economy further, increasing the deficit. He's talking about "compromising" with Republicans, by caving in on continuing tax cuts to the over $250,000 crowd. That would add $700 billion to the deficit, but few jobs.
He signed a health care bill, but like Medicare Part D, signed by W, it caters to the needs of the health care industry far more than patients, and provides no alternative to private health insurance; he could have pushed for the public option but Rahm Emmanuel persuaded him otherwise. "Reform" will give insurers huge new markets, subsidized by Uncle Sam.
He did sign a New Start treaty that cuts nuclear weapons, but his timid, transactional politics, reinforced by the Senate Democratic leadership, makes it unlikely to be ratified in this Congress; it won't be in the next.
Has he gotten us out of wars? Obama campaigned against Iraq, but we're still in it: our military is angling to stay after the 2011 treaty cut-off negotiated by Bush! And we're in up to our ears in Afghanistan--now until 2014. And Pakistan, and--the torturers are unpunished, and Guantanamo still has inmates.
Obama campaigned on the need for an international agreement on climate change, deploring Bush's rejection of Kyoto. He went to Copenhagen empty-handed from Congress (no climate change legislation passed), but he didn't use the EPA's so-far unchallenged mandate to regulate CO2 as leverage. So, no agreement was reached, just a handshake on the "we'll try to reduce emissions," mantra.
Then there's the deficit commission. Obama appointed advocates for dismantling Social Security and Medicare. So, of course, the co-chairs propose cutting Social Security, not raising the cap to better finance it, and cutting Medicare, not restructuring health care so we can pay for it.
Obama hasn't even challenged the false notion that Social Security contributes to the deficit; it doesn't. Instead, he tries to co-opt Republican anxiety about deficit spending, while millions are without jobs, or homes, and the economy is stuck. The nation needs a huge public works/public jobs program, not deficit-cutting: not until unemployment is slashed.
Obama is hardly a reformer like Emperor Majorian. Despite his rhetoric, he is a lesser Emperor, like Glycerius, creature of Generals and Senators, two years before the fall of Rome.
Obama perpetuates the failing policies of the past: he depends on "experts" from the past. While he could give inspirational speeches as a candidate, he's a pedagogue as President, rarely a fighter. He went from talking about changing the dialogue, to repeating it.
Obama is now going to cut (government) workers wages to trim the deficit, while unemployment is high and borrowing is dirt-cheap. Wage-cuts will slow down the economy further, increasing the deficit. He's talking about "compromising" with Republicans, by caving in on continuing tax cuts to the over $250,000 crowd. That would add $700 billion to the deficit, but few jobs.
He signed a health care bill, but like Medicare Part D, signed by W, it caters to the needs of the health care industry far more than patients, and provides no alternative to private health insurance; he could have pushed for the public option but Rahm Emmanuel persuaded him otherwise. "Reform" will give insurers huge new markets, subsidized by Uncle Sam.
He did sign a New Start treaty that cuts nuclear weapons, but his timid, transactional politics, reinforced by the Senate Democratic leadership, makes it unlikely to be ratified in this Congress; it won't be in the next.
Has he gotten us out of wars? Obama campaigned against Iraq, but we're still in it: our military is angling to stay after the 2011 treaty cut-off negotiated by Bush! And we're in up to our ears in Afghanistan--now until 2014. And Pakistan, and--the torturers are unpunished, and Guantanamo still has inmates.
Obama campaigned on the need for an international agreement on climate change, deploring Bush's rejection of Kyoto. He went to Copenhagen empty-handed from Congress (no climate change legislation passed), but he didn't use the EPA's so-far unchallenged mandate to regulate CO2 as leverage. So, no agreement was reached, just a handshake on the "we'll try to reduce emissions," mantra.
Then there's the deficit commission. Obama appointed advocates for dismantling Social Security and Medicare. So, of course, the co-chairs propose cutting Social Security, not raising the cap to better finance it, and cutting Medicare, not restructuring health care so we can pay for it.
Obama hasn't even challenged the false notion that Social Security contributes to the deficit; it doesn't. Instead, he tries to co-opt Republican anxiety about deficit spending, while millions are without jobs, or homes, and the economy is stuck. The nation needs a huge public works/public jobs program, not deficit-cutting: not until unemployment is slashed.
Obama is hardly a reformer like Emperor Majorian. Despite his rhetoric, he is a lesser Emperor, like Glycerius, creature of Generals and Senators, two years before the fall of Rome.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Leaks Spill Empire
The latest wiki leaks spill awful confirmations of what so many have been saying for so long: how sleazy is the Imperial enterprise.
I'm hoping it's the beginning of a graceful end to the American Empire. Since it does not legally exist, I cannot be accused of treason to say I'd love to see it go. The United States is a great Republic, not an Empire. Empires make nations into exploitative, brutal machines, which enormously benefit a very few, at the expense of nearly everyone else.
It happened with the Roman Empire, and the Spanish, and give a gander to the grand estates the British gentry showed off to each other. Those former empires are now prosperous states, more or less, if the bond speculators and the supine governments don't bring them all down.
Think what it would be like if the United States of America, the USA, was just an ordinary country. It would still be just as beautiful. The very rich might be less so. But everyone else would be better off. Consider, first of all, that we spend something above $750 billion strictly on "Defense." That's about ten times, what the Chinese (our nearest competitor) spends, although we borrow it from them, in effect. A good bit of the components we buy from them, too.
If we weren't spending most of that money on weapons and wars, on the ability to destroy, and actual destruction; if we weren't spending so much of that money overseas (700-800 bases in 80 countries), we could employ our people, taking advantage of their skills, we could rebuild our crumbling and out-of-date infrastructure, and afford the services everyone should have.
In addition, a constant drain to our balance of payments would be plugged. We could also enjoy the spectacle of the rest of the world trying to take care of themselves through the UN, or regional groups like NATO, in which the US is only one member. Nope, don't have the troops, don't have the airlift, either. Got rid of it. You'll just have to work it out--if you think it's important enough. How delicious that would be!
So, what brought on this vision of a Post-Imperial world? Why, Wikileaks, of course. The Wizard of Oz has been shown for the charlatan he is; the whole international "community," it seems, is crammed with small and cunning minds, constantly conniving. (I passed the written Foreign Service exam; I am so thankful I flunked the interview! I was in love, but that's a different story.)
Of course, heads of states and their flunkies, and especially Secretaries of State, etc. are extremely unhappy. Wikileaks exposes their pettiness and hypocrisy, and renders the USA less trustworthy than she was during the worst of Bush.
And after all, what is the ultimate currency of an empire? Belief that an empire will act like one.
If people laugh, it's all over.
I'm hoping it's the beginning of a graceful end to the American Empire. Since it does not legally exist, I cannot be accused of treason to say I'd love to see it go. The United States is a great Republic, not an Empire. Empires make nations into exploitative, brutal machines, which enormously benefit a very few, at the expense of nearly everyone else.
It happened with the Roman Empire, and the Spanish, and give a gander to the grand estates the British gentry showed off to each other. Those former empires are now prosperous states, more or less, if the bond speculators and the supine governments don't bring them all down.
Think what it would be like if the United States of America, the USA, was just an ordinary country. It would still be just as beautiful. The very rich might be less so. But everyone else would be better off. Consider, first of all, that we spend something above $750 billion strictly on "Defense." That's about ten times, what the Chinese (our nearest competitor) spends, although we borrow it from them, in effect. A good bit of the components we buy from them, too.
If we weren't spending most of that money on weapons and wars, on the ability to destroy, and actual destruction; if we weren't spending so much of that money overseas (700-800 bases in 80 countries), we could employ our people, taking advantage of their skills, we could rebuild our crumbling and out-of-date infrastructure, and afford the services everyone should have.
In addition, a constant drain to our balance of payments would be plugged. We could also enjoy the spectacle of the rest of the world trying to take care of themselves through the UN, or regional groups like NATO, in which the US is only one member. Nope, don't have the troops, don't have the airlift, either. Got rid of it. You'll just have to work it out--if you think it's important enough. How delicious that would be!
So, what brought on this vision of a Post-Imperial world? Why, Wikileaks, of course. The Wizard of Oz has been shown for the charlatan he is; the whole international "community," it seems, is crammed with small and cunning minds, constantly conniving. (I passed the written Foreign Service exam; I am so thankful I flunked the interview! I was in love, but that's a different story.)
Of course, heads of states and their flunkies, and especially Secretaries of State, etc. are extremely unhappy. Wikileaks exposes their pettiness and hypocrisy, and renders the USA less trustworthy than she was during the worst of Bush.
And after all, what is the ultimate currency of an empire? Belief that an empire will act like one.
If people laugh, it's all over.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Bees and People
I keep bees; three hives. Elizabeth asked me if I could describe them.
The oldest hive is laid back; it's the only one that had only two filled supers, but had filled some of the hive body. I left it one super. The next hive, I had assembled from bees and a replacement queen I bought from Sam's Anarchy Apiaries. Sam eschews bee-veils and gloves. He's handled hives barefoot and sleeveless. This hive is not anarchic; it works hard, but it's very gentle. With it, I could probably get by without gloves (never without a veil). It produced three supers. I harvested the two least full. The last hive was a volunteer, a gift. It swarmed into one of my spare hive bodies and it stayed. It is the most productive; it over-filled three supers and had honey down below. I took only two supers. It's always fierce, ready to defend its hive. Its bees have stung me several times.
So, here we have three collectives, each comprising at least 100,000 members, replaced by a new generation of workers every six weeks in summer, and yet each has a collective identity I can readily recognize. Other beekeepers have confirmed this: hives have personalities.
So, do cities. So, do nations. Over time, the personality of a hive may change. The laid back one has become more productive, but it's a survivor of lean years when I had to feed it. France has been fractious since at least the French Revolution, but despite its latest round of strikes, it's calming down.
The USA was big, brash, and wasteful. It's still brash, and it's hard to change its spendthrift ways, despite straitened circumstances. Americans have had a tendency to blame late arrivals for their troubles. Now, that the US is no longer so exceptional, now that nations like China and India are growing rapidly and it is not, blaming the victims flames higher. It could become a nasty wildfire, burning out of control all over the world.
The victims are immigrants, deviants from "normal," like gay men and women, and Middle Easterners, victimized by US imperial meddling.
While Obama and "moderates" think they are trying to restore order to a chaotic world, right-wing hawks want to wade into countries like Iran, or Venezuela: our primacy is threatened; those nations' governments are unfriendly.
The impulse is not pacification, not order, but assertion: "who's boss," like Paladino, defeated for NY Governor; he was going "to Albany with a baseball bat."
Palin represents that spirit, albeit with a smile and a wink: similar resentment drove Fascism and Nazism. Can she carve the American hive into a stinging, vindictive force? The American Empire on a last rampage?
I hope not.
The oldest hive is laid back; it's the only one that had only two filled supers, but had filled some of the hive body. I left it one super. The next hive, I had assembled from bees and a replacement queen I bought from Sam's Anarchy Apiaries. Sam eschews bee-veils and gloves. He's handled hives barefoot and sleeveless. This hive is not anarchic; it works hard, but it's very gentle. With it, I could probably get by without gloves (never without a veil). It produced three supers. I harvested the two least full. The last hive was a volunteer, a gift. It swarmed into one of my spare hive bodies and it stayed. It is the most productive; it over-filled three supers and had honey down below. I took only two supers. It's always fierce, ready to defend its hive. Its bees have stung me several times.
So, here we have three collectives, each comprising at least 100,000 members, replaced by a new generation of workers every six weeks in summer, and yet each has a collective identity I can readily recognize. Other beekeepers have confirmed this: hives have personalities.
So, do cities. So, do nations. Over time, the personality of a hive may change. The laid back one has become more productive, but it's a survivor of lean years when I had to feed it. France has been fractious since at least the French Revolution, but despite its latest round of strikes, it's calming down.
The USA was big, brash, and wasteful. It's still brash, and it's hard to change its spendthrift ways, despite straitened circumstances. Americans have had a tendency to blame late arrivals for their troubles. Now, that the US is no longer so exceptional, now that nations like China and India are growing rapidly and it is not, blaming the victims flames higher. It could become a nasty wildfire, burning out of control all over the world.
The victims are immigrants, deviants from "normal," like gay men and women, and Middle Easterners, victimized by US imperial meddling.
While Obama and "moderates" think they are trying to restore order to a chaotic world, right-wing hawks want to wade into countries like Iran, or Venezuela: our primacy is threatened; those nations' governments are unfriendly.
The impulse is not pacification, not order, but assertion: "who's boss," like Paladino, defeated for NY Governor; he was going "to Albany with a baseball bat."
Palin represents that spirit, albeit with a smile and a wink: similar resentment drove Fascism and Nazism. Can she carve the American hive into a stinging, vindictive force? The American Empire on a last rampage?
I hope not.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Democracy as Distraction
Democracy As Distraction
What do you call a political system in which a tiny wealthy class trains most of society not to think? What do you call a politics that can be bought and sold, but costs more than any but the wealthiest can pay?
It isn't democracy.
The amount spent on the mid-term elections, (over $4 billion) was staggering, and the sources of much of that money may never be known. We do know that a collection of European firms ponied up almost a million. We also know that a multi-millionaire spent millions on a personal vendetta. We know that two billionaire brothers funded groups like 60 Plus, purporting to be just ordinary folks, accusing sitting Democratic Congressmen of supporting heinous provisions supposedly in the healthcare law: they weren't in it, the Congressmen didn't support such provisions, but that didn't matter. Fifty of 53 Blue Dog to outspokenly progressive Congressmen and women attacked by groups like 60 Plus were defeated.
There was no "mandate" won in this election, unless it was for deceit and misinformation. People weren't voting based on facts, but because ad campaigns generated anger and rejection--of anyone tarred with the Democratic majority, or Obama. Fury was learned amnesia. The hard times were caused by laissez-faire economics, but voters voted for laissez-faire Republicans, because Democrats, elected in 2008 to fix the economy, had failed to fix it fast enough, except for the financial industry: unemployment and job insecurity are far too high. So, egged on by negative campaigns, voters flailed out wildly against Democratic incumbents.
Democracy is a mere distraction, Elizabeth Cunningham pointed out (links to her books onsite). The real power has been grabbed by a tiny, wealthy elite; they are like Roman Senators of old, exercising power through their wealth, and through the institutions they control: in this era, corporations, financial funds and the military. They can use unlimited funds to unleash attacks on any candidate who looks at them cross-eyed.
We still think we live in a democracy? Not all anonymous funding paid off: the campaign against California's climate law went down to defeat, despite piles of oil money thrown against it. Perhaps it was defeated because anonymous donors were identified--energy companies--and voters knew the companies opposed climate change legislation for one reason only: to protect their profits.
The "Green" referendum was an exception. Ad campaigns succeeded when their funding sources remained undisclosed; they succeeded among voters who didn't pay attention to politics until a few weeks before the election and among voters who depended for information on TV "news" (which made billions on the ads).
Unless there is a genuine mass movement, laws to require disclosure of funding sources (like the Disclose Act), and a revival of real journalism, we will be ruled by money until the selfish class bankrupts the nation. Then, when the US is a burnt-out cinder, it will move on to "pleasant climes" somewhere else.
What do you call a political system in which a tiny wealthy class trains most of society not to think? What do you call a politics that can be bought and sold, but costs more than any but the wealthiest can pay?
It isn't democracy.
The amount spent on the mid-term elections, (over $4 billion) was staggering, and the sources of much of that money may never be known. We do know that a collection of European firms ponied up almost a million. We also know that a multi-millionaire spent millions on a personal vendetta. We know that two billionaire brothers funded groups like 60 Plus, purporting to be just ordinary folks, accusing sitting Democratic Congressmen of supporting heinous provisions supposedly in the healthcare law: they weren't in it, the Congressmen didn't support such provisions, but that didn't matter. Fifty of 53 Blue Dog to outspokenly progressive Congressmen and women attacked by groups like 60 Plus were defeated.
There was no "mandate" won in this election, unless it was for deceit and misinformation. People weren't voting based on facts, but because ad campaigns generated anger and rejection--of anyone tarred with the Democratic majority, or Obama. Fury was learned amnesia. The hard times were caused by laissez-faire economics, but voters voted for laissez-faire Republicans, because Democrats, elected in 2008 to fix the economy, had failed to fix it fast enough, except for the financial industry: unemployment and job insecurity are far too high. So, egged on by negative campaigns, voters flailed out wildly against Democratic incumbents.
Democracy is a mere distraction, Elizabeth Cunningham pointed out (links to her books onsite). The real power has been grabbed by a tiny, wealthy elite; they are like Roman Senators of old, exercising power through their wealth, and through the institutions they control: in this era, corporations, financial funds and the military. They can use unlimited funds to unleash attacks on any candidate who looks at them cross-eyed.
We still think we live in a democracy? Not all anonymous funding paid off: the campaign against California's climate law went down to defeat, despite piles of oil money thrown against it. Perhaps it was defeated because anonymous donors were identified--energy companies--and voters knew the companies opposed climate change legislation for one reason only: to protect their profits.
The "Green" referendum was an exception. Ad campaigns succeeded when their funding sources remained undisclosed; they succeeded among voters who didn't pay attention to politics until a few weeks before the election and among voters who depended for information on TV "news" (which made billions on the ads).
Unless there is a genuine mass movement, laws to require disclosure of funding sources (like the Disclose Act), and a revival of real journalism, we will be ruled by money until the selfish class bankrupts the nation. Then, when the US is a burnt-out cinder, it will move on to "pleasant climes" somewhere else.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Government "Overreach" and Powerless Emperor
My friend told me: "We are not an Empire. Empires were ruled by one man called Emperor. We are a Democracy, however flawed and inefficient."
It depends on one's definition. An empire, to me, is any state entity that attempts to rule over other states, or peoples, with or without their consent. A Democracy, on the other hand is a state ruled by the people. I suppose that's still formally the case, as it was even after Augustus took over in Rome, but the two are not mutually exclusive, again true in both the early Roman Empire and today. Augustus was formally elected. So was Obama. In the latter case, it was a genuinely democratic election, but that doesn't make much difference: the military apparently has the last say, anyway.
In the US, we have a President who made a great effort to go against "military wisdom," and decide that American troops should begin withdrawing from Afghanistan in the summer of 2011, and that the US would abide by the treaty signed by Bush to withdraw from Iraq in the same period.
Yet, already, General Petraeus and Secretary Gates are undercutting those stated policies. Petraeus is pushing for the President to back down on his Afghan commitment, and Gates told the Iraqis that "we" would happily stay longer if they asked. In addition to the rhetoric, actions on the ground speak louder: the huge, imperial-like embassy in Baghdad, and the huge embassy now to be built in Kabul do not bespeak withdrawal; they express an expectation that we will stay, as do the huge, self-sufficient "permanent" US bases.
We can spend three-quarters of a billion dollars to construct these imperial edifices and employ thousands in both Iraq and Afghanistan to build them (and $1,000,000 per soldier/year) but we can't spend money for jobs at home: that's government "over-reach" say the newly elected GOP Congressmen and Senators.
The "emperor" will not be able to spend money at home to stimulate job creation, or to green grow the economy; that's only possible in a non-imperial nation, like China?
So, instead, the Fed attempts to re-stimulate the economy through "quantitative easing," but everyone from bond speculators to the "mad-and-can't-take-it-anymore" crowd think this will roil the dollar into an inflationary spiral. On the other hand, what should policy-makers do? Let the nation--and probably the world--slide into a double-dip recession, and not only recession, but a new Great Depression, complete with trade war?
Note: there is no inflation, despite price rises in energy and commodities, which probably means that there is deflation in a lot of economic sectors.
Unless the President/Emperor can act decisively to stop the slide, we will descend into misery, and beggar the world, too. Will the US Empire collapse?
An emperor without power is the worst of all possible alternatives.
It depends on one's definition. An empire, to me, is any state entity that attempts to rule over other states, or peoples, with or without their consent. A Democracy, on the other hand is a state ruled by the people. I suppose that's still formally the case, as it was even after Augustus took over in Rome, but the two are not mutually exclusive, again true in both the early Roman Empire and today. Augustus was formally elected. So was Obama. In the latter case, it was a genuinely democratic election, but that doesn't make much difference: the military apparently has the last say, anyway.
In the US, we have a President who made a great effort to go against "military wisdom," and decide that American troops should begin withdrawing from Afghanistan in the summer of 2011, and that the US would abide by the treaty signed by Bush to withdraw from Iraq in the same period.
Yet, already, General Petraeus and Secretary Gates are undercutting those stated policies. Petraeus is pushing for the President to back down on his Afghan commitment, and Gates told the Iraqis that "we" would happily stay longer if they asked. In addition to the rhetoric, actions on the ground speak louder: the huge, imperial-like embassy in Baghdad, and the huge embassy now to be built in Kabul do not bespeak withdrawal; they express an expectation that we will stay, as do the huge, self-sufficient "permanent" US bases.
We can spend three-quarters of a billion dollars to construct these imperial edifices and employ thousands in both Iraq and Afghanistan to build them (and $1,000,000 per soldier/year) but we can't spend money for jobs at home: that's government "over-reach" say the newly elected GOP Congressmen and Senators.
The "emperor" will not be able to spend money at home to stimulate job creation, or to green grow the economy; that's only possible in a non-imperial nation, like China?
So, instead, the Fed attempts to re-stimulate the economy through "quantitative easing," but everyone from bond speculators to the "mad-and-can't-take-it-anymore" crowd think this will roil the dollar into an inflationary spiral. On the other hand, what should policy-makers do? Let the nation--and probably the world--slide into a double-dip recession, and not only recession, but a new Great Depression, complete with trade war?
Note: there is no inflation, despite price rises in energy and commodities, which probably means that there is deflation in a lot of economic sectors.
Unless the President/Emperor can act decisively to stop the slide, we will descend into misery, and beggar the world, too. Will the US Empire collapse?
An emperor without power is the worst of all possible alternatives.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
A Vet Who Wishes There Was No Veteran's Day
A veteran on Veteran's Day
wishing there wasn't any such thing.
What good does war do?
Why are humans so violent?
We are the most deadly predators
That ever evolved.
We dominate the planet,
Kill anything that challenges us, like wolves,
Or hunts us, like cougars, or steals our food,
Like rats.
And we treat each other the same way!
And yet, humans wouldn't survive
if they didn't cooperate.
We need food others grow, clothes others make, houses others build, cars others put together, computers others design, skills others know, and the list is almost endless, isn't it?
We make or do something in return.
That's called the economic system.
But some people have always been predators,
Others become prey.
From the first century BC to the fifth century CE,
Romans were the primary predators
in the Mediterranean and European world, at least.
From the fourteenth century to the 20th
the Europeans were the primary predators worldwide
lording it over, and ripping off "the natives."
In the 20th century, an upstart settler nation
That styled itself unconsciously on Rome,
but sprawled across a new continent,
Became the hero and then the new predator,
Dominant, globe-straddling, ideologically benign
in its exploitation and destruction: we destroyed
the village in order to save it, was their motto
in the third to last of wars that would bleed
its people white
and enrich its wealthy, who can leave the ruin
of the USA--for their homes in pleasant climes
and beautiful places, anywhere in the world but here.
The 21st century will not be American; it might be
Chinese, or Indian, or maybe Brazilian.
Maybe the 21st will be the century of the BRIC
Maybe, finally, it will be a century when Veteran's Day
Is no longer a big deal.
wishing there wasn't any such thing.
What good does war do?
Why are humans so violent?
We are the most deadly predators
That ever evolved.
We dominate the planet,
Kill anything that challenges us, like wolves,
Or hunts us, like cougars, or steals our food,
Like rats.
And we treat each other the same way!
And yet, humans wouldn't survive
if they didn't cooperate.
We need food others grow, clothes others make, houses others build, cars others put together, computers others design, skills others know, and the list is almost endless, isn't it?
We make or do something in return.
That's called the economic system.
But some people have always been predators,
Others become prey.
From the first century BC to the fifth century CE,
Romans were the primary predators
in the Mediterranean and European world, at least.
From the fourteenth century to the 20th
the Europeans were the primary predators worldwide
lording it over, and ripping off "the natives."
In the 20th century, an upstart settler nation
That styled itself unconsciously on Rome,
but sprawled across a new continent,
Became the hero and then the new predator,
Dominant, globe-straddling, ideologically benign
in its exploitation and destruction: we destroyed
the village in order to save it, was their motto
in the third to last of wars that would bleed
its people white
and enrich its wealthy, who can leave the ruin
of the USA--for their homes in pleasant climes
and beautiful places, anywhere in the world but here.
The 21st century will not be American; it might be
Chinese, or Indian, or maybe Brazilian.
Maybe the 21st will be the century of the BRIC
Maybe, finally, it will be a century when Veteran's Day
Is no longer a big deal.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Plutocracy?
Corporatocracy? Is it big corporations, or wealthy individuals who have stolen democracy and poisoned citizens' minds? It's both, of course. All I know is: people like Russ Feingold bit the dust, because they refused to play to the big donors, the corpocrats who were funding entities like Crossroads GPS.
Plutocracy means rule by the rich, and by that standard, the election of Ron Johnson over Russ Feingold, certainly looks like a plutocratic takeover. Feingold was not only not wealthy, he was fastidious about where he got his campaign funding, and he was notoriously independent when it came to the needs of the wealthy. So old fashioned: he insisted that ordinary people and their concerns mattered. The man who defeated Russ, Ron Johnson, is a millionaire plastics manufacturer who never held office, but was not particularly fastidious about where the money came from, and was the beneficiary of almost all the anonymously funded ads (most out of state); they either promoted his positions, or attacked Feingold.
On the other hand, Feingold raised significantly more money than Johnson (all from small donors, apparently), and spent more, perhaps more than Johnson and the out of state ad campaigns combined. The election in Wisconsin, and in many other states, has been described as "rejectionist." It was like that voter in my Election District who demanded a list of all the incumbents, so he could vote against them all. See my earlier blog for that story.
Except maybe the election wasn't really rejectionist. My two Democratic Senators were reelected easily, even if my Congressman lost. My Senators, Schumer and Gillibrand, are probably acceptable to what some are beginning to call the plutonomy, i.e. the wealthy, corporate movers and shakers. They have both been friendly enough to Wall Street.
The system we appear to be evolving towards looks increasingly like the end days of the Western Roman Empire. That was a true plutocracy, however, because there were no corporations. This, in some ways looks more insidious. The wealthy get what they want, which includes turning everyone else into the equivalent of serfs, but they also get to set their serfs, in far-flung parts of the world, against each other, competing for the lowest wages. And, because of mass media, they can persuade them that this is the way things have to be.
"The best democracies money can buy" means plutocracy, or corporatocracy on a world scale.
A fellow graduate student (long ago) was asked, while on a Political Science panel, what he thought about Revolution. Pointing to his small stature, he said, "I'm a small Political Scientist, so I don't like violence." I'm small, too, and I agree.
But I wonder how much misery people will willingly endure--before they erupt. Is that what suicide bombers are doing already? Are they the beginning of our era's barbarian hordes?
Plutocracy means rule by the rich, and by that standard, the election of Ron Johnson over Russ Feingold, certainly looks like a plutocratic takeover. Feingold was not only not wealthy, he was fastidious about where he got his campaign funding, and he was notoriously independent when it came to the needs of the wealthy. So old fashioned: he insisted that ordinary people and their concerns mattered. The man who defeated Russ, Ron Johnson, is a millionaire plastics manufacturer who never held office, but was not particularly fastidious about where the money came from, and was the beneficiary of almost all the anonymously funded ads (most out of state); they either promoted his positions, or attacked Feingold.
On the other hand, Feingold raised significantly more money than Johnson (all from small donors, apparently), and spent more, perhaps more than Johnson and the out of state ad campaigns combined. The election in Wisconsin, and in many other states, has been described as "rejectionist." It was like that voter in my Election District who demanded a list of all the incumbents, so he could vote against them all. See my earlier blog for that story.
Except maybe the election wasn't really rejectionist. My two Democratic Senators were reelected easily, even if my Congressman lost. My Senators, Schumer and Gillibrand, are probably acceptable to what some are beginning to call the plutonomy, i.e. the wealthy, corporate movers and shakers. They have both been friendly enough to Wall Street.
The system we appear to be evolving towards looks increasingly like the end days of the Western Roman Empire. That was a true plutocracy, however, because there were no corporations. This, in some ways looks more insidious. The wealthy get what they want, which includes turning everyone else into the equivalent of serfs, but they also get to set their serfs, in far-flung parts of the world, against each other, competing for the lowest wages. And, because of mass media, they can persuade them that this is the way things have to be.
"The best democracies money can buy" means plutocracy, or corporatocracy on a world scale.
A fellow graduate student (long ago) was asked, while on a Political Science panel, what he thought about Revolution. Pointing to his small stature, he said, "I'm a small Political Scientist, so I don't like violence." I'm small, too, and I agree.
But I wonder how much misery people will willingly endure--before they erupt. Is that what suicide bombers are doing already? Are they the beginning of our era's barbarian hordes?
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Government by Default
Corporate leaders, right-wing media moguls, speculators, bankers and hedge fund managers were all cheering as the election returns rolled in. Oh, they had their little disappointments, both in California and New York. The oil companies suffered the most, having spent well over a $100 million to repeal California's global warming law: their proposition failed.
Generally, big business won, defense won, and the American people were sold a shoddy bill of goods. What did the people vote for? Kicking the bums out. According to Pew's polls, the economy, i.e. jobs, was by far the most important issue (to 61%): what people wanted was more of them. Repealing health care reform, or substantially changing it was important to only 21%.
However, John Boehner, new Speaker-designate, vowed that a health care repeal bill was the first order of business. And what will Republicans propose as stimulus, to create jobs? Cut taxes, or specifically, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, including tax cuts for those poor mites who earn more than $250,000 a year, and even for those heroes of enterprise who earn a $100 million or more. That is supposed to create jobs, but corporations are already rolling in money, even as they lay off more employees.
The Fed's response is to go big ($600 billion) on Quantitative Easing, or creating money. Fed chief, Bernanke, nearly pleaded with Congress for greater fiscal stimulus, but he could see that Congress isn't going to pass one. Ironically, it may increase the deficit by cutting taxes and pushing for a more aggressive defense policy. Cutting "waste" is a fraud, and even Republicans know that.
So, how are Republicans going to solve the jobs issue? They can't; they will make it worse, so they will continue their diversionary politics--and blame all our troubles on Obama.
Meanwhile, the corporations are getting exactly what they paid for. Stalemate in Washington means: no interference, unilateral control over their own multinational estates and their pursuit of maximum profits, everywhere.
What corporations really want? Government to concern itself only with protecting them and their assets, both at home and abroad, but certainly not to concern itself with the people's welfare: ultimately, corporations want to control that, too, for a profit.
How would workers fare under unrestrained corporate rule? Forget about minimum wages, maximum hours, safe working conditions, or safe food and drink. Forget about a chance to "make it rich," an American dream that fools many into supporting the corporate agenda. Only a tiny elite will "make it," and most of them will come from the already elite. Everyone else will be overworked and underpaid, or cast off to survive however they can, including crime. Security companies should thrive! So should private prisons.
America's Roman Senators just took a giant step towards our equivalent of the Fall of Rome.
Generally, big business won, defense won, and the American people were sold a shoddy bill of goods. What did the people vote for? Kicking the bums out. According to Pew's polls, the economy, i.e. jobs, was by far the most important issue (to 61%): what people wanted was more of them. Repealing health care reform, or substantially changing it was important to only 21%.
However, John Boehner, new Speaker-designate, vowed that a health care repeal bill was the first order of business. And what will Republicans propose as stimulus, to create jobs? Cut taxes, or specifically, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, including tax cuts for those poor mites who earn more than $250,000 a year, and even for those heroes of enterprise who earn a $100 million or more. That is supposed to create jobs, but corporations are already rolling in money, even as they lay off more employees.
The Fed's response is to go big ($600 billion) on Quantitative Easing, or creating money. Fed chief, Bernanke, nearly pleaded with Congress for greater fiscal stimulus, but he could see that Congress isn't going to pass one. Ironically, it may increase the deficit by cutting taxes and pushing for a more aggressive defense policy. Cutting "waste" is a fraud, and even Republicans know that.
So, how are Republicans going to solve the jobs issue? They can't; they will make it worse, so they will continue their diversionary politics--and blame all our troubles on Obama.
Meanwhile, the corporations are getting exactly what they paid for. Stalemate in Washington means: no interference, unilateral control over their own multinational estates and their pursuit of maximum profits, everywhere.
What corporations really want? Government to concern itself only with protecting them and their assets, both at home and abroad, but certainly not to concern itself with the people's welfare: ultimately, corporations want to control that, too, for a profit.
How would workers fare under unrestrained corporate rule? Forget about minimum wages, maximum hours, safe working conditions, or safe food and drink. Forget about a chance to "make it rich," an American dream that fools many into supporting the corporate agenda. Only a tiny elite will "make it," and most of them will come from the already elite. Everyone else will be overworked and underpaid, or cast off to survive however they can, including crime. Security companies should thrive! So should private prisons.
America's Roman Senators just took a giant step towards our equivalent of the Fall of Rome.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Elections and Anger
"Quick, I want a list of all the incumbents, so I can vote against them!" the voter told me, at the election "in-take" table in our rural-ex-urban Town Hall.
I said I couldn't help him; it's against election law for an election inspector to politic. The Republican inspector sitting next to me remarked, "If he doesn't know who the incumbents are, maybe he should have paid attention for the last couple years; probably, all he did was complain."
The voter, a youngish middle-aged man, was angry and frustrated, but he epitomized, for me, the mood of the electorate, not just locally, but nationally.
There was also the older voter, who was clearly confused by the new voting system (New York recently installed optical scanners and paper ballots to finally comply with the HAVA federal election law; most people wanted their lever machines back). The old man couldn't believe he actually had to blacken ovals by each candidate, and after requesting bipartisan assistance, said he'd wanted to vote for Cuomo, but now he was so frustrated he'd just vote the straight Republican line; anything else was too complicated.
The scanner did break down, repeatedly, and, after several hours wait, was replaced by another from County headquarters. At least, the "emergency" ballots voted in the interim, were easily retrieved and scanned once the new scanner was up and running. Paper ballots are a sturdy paper record.
Our incumbent Democratic Congressman was voted out; the operative mood was simply 'throw the bums out,' even though the 'tea party' gubernatorial candidate, Paladino, was soundly rejected. My Republican colleague pronounced him "crazy."
Republicans swept to control the House of Representatives, but despite tea party rants, there was no clear mandate, not only because Democrats retained the Senate, but because what voters were reflecting was the inchoate anger and frustration of my angry voter, who had no idea what he wanted, except: throw the bums out.
How can the US govern itself as a democracy, when voters have no idea what they want? Voters chose rejection, not direction.
But then Democrats, after campaigning in 2006-08 for Change, were not capable of delivering sufficient positive change, nor, especially, of undoing the economic damage wrought by Republicans and Bush. So, now we get Republicans, aiming to restore the previous, unregulated economy, even though it led to the economic collapse that caused voter anger. There even might be enough spine-challenged Democrats in the Senate to go along.
Will the US experience long-term stagnation, like Japan? Likely--unless Obama, or a rival presidential candidate, promotes war as a solution. The Washington Post has suggested Iran! Let's add Somalia, Pakistan, Venezuela, Bolivia and Yemen: WWIII. The US could lose its empire through bankruptcy and defeat, just like Japan and Rome.
Then, American elites could move to China, Brazil, or?
I said I couldn't help him; it's against election law for an election inspector to politic. The Republican inspector sitting next to me remarked, "If he doesn't know who the incumbents are, maybe he should have paid attention for the last couple years; probably, all he did was complain."
The voter, a youngish middle-aged man, was angry and frustrated, but he epitomized, for me, the mood of the electorate, not just locally, but nationally.
There was also the older voter, who was clearly confused by the new voting system (New York recently installed optical scanners and paper ballots to finally comply with the HAVA federal election law; most people wanted their lever machines back). The old man couldn't believe he actually had to blacken ovals by each candidate, and after requesting bipartisan assistance, said he'd wanted to vote for Cuomo, but now he was so frustrated he'd just vote the straight Republican line; anything else was too complicated.
The scanner did break down, repeatedly, and, after several hours wait, was replaced by another from County headquarters. At least, the "emergency" ballots voted in the interim, were easily retrieved and scanned once the new scanner was up and running. Paper ballots are a sturdy paper record.
Our incumbent Democratic Congressman was voted out; the operative mood was simply 'throw the bums out,' even though the 'tea party' gubernatorial candidate, Paladino, was soundly rejected. My Republican colleague pronounced him "crazy."
Republicans swept to control the House of Representatives, but despite tea party rants, there was no clear mandate, not only because Democrats retained the Senate, but because what voters were reflecting was the inchoate anger and frustration of my angry voter, who had no idea what he wanted, except: throw the bums out.
How can the US govern itself as a democracy, when voters have no idea what they want? Voters chose rejection, not direction.
But then Democrats, after campaigning in 2006-08 for Change, were not capable of delivering sufficient positive change, nor, especially, of undoing the economic damage wrought by Republicans and Bush. So, now we get Republicans, aiming to restore the previous, unregulated economy, even though it led to the economic collapse that caused voter anger. There even might be enough spine-challenged Democrats in the Senate to go along.
Will the US experience long-term stagnation, like Japan? Likely--unless Obama, or a rival presidential candidate, promotes war as a solution. The Washington Post has suggested Iran! Let's add Somalia, Pakistan, Venezuela, Bolivia and Yemen: WWIII. The US could lose its empire through bankruptcy and defeat, just like Japan and Rome.
Then, American elites could move to China, Brazil, or?
Friday, October 29, 2010
Suicide by Politics
On the one side, we have Democrats saying they're willing to compromise; on the other, we have Republicans insisting they will refuse to do so. We have Democrats, and President Obama, who still think that the most important thing is to govern effectively, and attempt to solve the huge problems the US faces (I'm not saying their "solutions" are brilliant, but at least they're trying). On the other side, we have Republican leader Mitch McConnell, proclaiming their number one goal: to insure Obama fails as President, that he does not win a second term. Does that sound like governing?
If the Republicans win control of the House and/or the Senate, we can look forward to political guerrilla war to be carried out in both chambers. The only support Obama will get from any Republican is for more war and war spending. Or for any policy they push, like extending tax cuts to the wealthy, that would weaken Obama's support among his base.
If Democrats pull out a narrow win, and maintain control of both chambers, they will still be facing a determined, intransigent, and hostile opposition in no mood for compromise, or for coming to terms with the constraints of governing. The Tea Party, and the corporations that back it, have already shown they can punish any compromiser. So, the US will join the ranks of ungovernable nations, in which the powers-that-be are paralyzed. No decisive action, maybe even no budget, may be possible.
Perhaps NATO should send an occupying force to stabilize the country--ah, the US controls NATO!
One chance for governance would be if there were a reduced Democratic majority--many of the "Blue Dogs" would be gone--that realized that compromise was not possible, only governing by strict majority rule would work. The blocking filibuster would have to be jettisoned in the Senate: it could be in its first session of the new Congress.
I confess to donating a little to progressive campaigns, and phone calling for our local Congressman, but I'm not sanguine, not with the 100's of millions spent on negative ads by anonymous corporations against almost all Democrats.
We are facing a Supreme Court-induced coup d'état by the extremely wealthy, a new gilded age in which the corporate wealthy will determine US policy, just as it did in the 1880's.
Unlike the 1880's, however, the US is not a surging new power, but an aging behemoth, with a dangerous military and a costly empire. Meanwhile, China, India, the EC and Brazil will feel free to take over economically, given US stalemate, or worse, control by global corporations wedded to a wasteful status quo.
This is a different scenario for the fall of American Empire! Elections 2010 could be decisive.
If the Republicans win control of the House and/or the Senate, we can look forward to political guerrilla war to be carried out in both chambers. The only support Obama will get from any Republican is for more war and war spending. Or for any policy they push, like extending tax cuts to the wealthy, that would weaken Obama's support among his base.
If Democrats pull out a narrow win, and maintain control of both chambers, they will still be facing a determined, intransigent, and hostile opposition in no mood for compromise, or for coming to terms with the constraints of governing. The Tea Party, and the corporations that back it, have already shown they can punish any compromiser. So, the US will join the ranks of ungovernable nations, in which the powers-that-be are paralyzed. No decisive action, maybe even no budget, may be possible.
Perhaps NATO should send an occupying force to stabilize the country--ah, the US controls NATO!
One chance for governance would be if there were a reduced Democratic majority--many of the "Blue Dogs" would be gone--that realized that compromise was not possible, only governing by strict majority rule would work. The blocking filibuster would have to be jettisoned in the Senate: it could be in its first session of the new Congress.
I confess to donating a little to progressive campaigns, and phone calling for our local Congressman, but I'm not sanguine, not with the 100's of millions spent on negative ads by anonymous corporations against almost all Democrats.
We are facing a Supreme Court-induced coup d'état by the extremely wealthy, a new gilded age in which the corporate wealthy will determine US policy, just as it did in the 1880's.
Unlike the 1880's, however, the US is not a surging new power, but an aging behemoth, with a dangerous military and a costly empire. Meanwhile, China, India, the EC and Brazil will feel free to take over economically, given US stalemate, or worse, control by global corporations wedded to a wasteful status quo.
This is a different scenario for the fall of American Empire! Elections 2010 could be decisive.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Foreign $s Promote Global Warming in US
Now, it's official: European corporations, including BP, are contributing funds to US Senate campaigns--for climate change deniers and candidates who vow to block the cap and trade bill. Total contributions: $240,000, more than Koch Industries pursuing the same agenda. So, BP, for example, having polluted our Gulf of Mexico and killed workers in a refinery fire, now wants to buy politicians--so they can do more of the same, with no government interference.
European corporations are meddling in US politics. That they can, has been made possible by the Supreme Court's decision opening the way for corporate money in campaigns, despite Justice Alito shaking his head when Obama asserted that it would: Obama stated that the Citizens United decision opened election campaigns to foreign funds. Clearly, it has.
The list of corporations revealed by Climate Action Network Europe (CANE), are: BP, Arcelor-Mittal (steel), Solvay (chemicals), LaFarge (cement), GDF-Suez (energy), BASF (chemicals), Bayer (pharmaceuticals) and EON (energy). They are concerned about pollution controls: all are large-scale polluters. Europe has been in the forefront combating climate change, and these corporations have been forced to comply with EC regulations to reduce emissions.
Their thinking: if they can help elect climate change deniers and anti-climate change legislators in the US, then the US will do nothing about climate change, and they can argue that Europe shouldn't handicap itself with "burdensome" and "anti-business" regulations, either.
The same process is going on in California, which has an initiative on its ballot to nullify Schwarzenegger's widely acclaimed climate law. Money pours in from everywhere to nullify the law, but from energy companies especially.
It's fascinating to identify the allies of the Tea Party's American "patriots."
It's also fascinating to see that, so far, participants like stridently "patriotic" Fox News, have made no issue of foreign participation in our elections. In fact, it has been widely reported, but not fully substantiated, that many of the millions spent by the Chamber of Commerce and various other Tea Party groups like Rove's American Crossroads, come from foreign corporations.
It can be argued that this is only fair, since the US, and American corporations have spent money in foreign election campaigns for decades. But it is against US election laws, and it should be an issue in this campaign. Do Americans really want foreign corporations to help decide who governs us, and what policies we pursue?
Further, the funding revealed by CANE is "climate sabotage:" it is aimed at stopping any action to combat, or ameliorate climate change. And it is motivated by one thing only: corporate profits.
America is beginning to look, not so much like a declining empire as a Third World country, where all the (foreign and domestic) corporate heavies make the rules and select the players, for their own global profits.
European corporations are meddling in US politics. That they can, has been made possible by the Supreme Court's decision opening the way for corporate money in campaigns, despite Justice Alito shaking his head when Obama asserted that it would: Obama stated that the Citizens United decision opened election campaigns to foreign funds. Clearly, it has.
The list of corporations revealed by Climate Action Network Europe (CANE), are: BP, Arcelor-Mittal (steel), Solvay (chemicals), LaFarge (cement), GDF-Suez (energy), BASF (chemicals), Bayer (pharmaceuticals) and EON (energy). They are concerned about pollution controls: all are large-scale polluters. Europe has been in the forefront combating climate change, and these corporations have been forced to comply with EC regulations to reduce emissions.
Their thinking: if they can help elect climate change deniers and anti-climate change legislators in the US, then the US will do nothing about climate change, and they can argue that Europe shouldn't handicap itself with "burdensome" and "anti-business" regulations, either.
The same process is going on in California, which has an initiative on its ballot to nullify Schwarzenegger's widely acclaimed climate law. Money pours in from everywhere to nullify the law, but from energy companies especially.
It's fascinating to identify the allies of the Tea Party's American "patriots."
It's also fascinating to see that, so far, participants like stridently "patriotic" Fox News, have made no issue of foreign participation in our elections. In fact, it has been widely reported, but not fully substantiated, that many of the millions spent by the Chamber of Commerce and various other Tea Party groups like Rove's American Crossroads, come from foreign corporations.
It can be argued that this is only fair, since the US, and American corporations have spent money in foreign election campaigns for decades. But it is against US election laws, and it should be an issue in this campaign. Do Americans really want foreign corporations to help decide who governs us, and what policies we pursue?
Further, the funding revealed by CANE is "climate sabotage:" it is aimed at stopping any action to combat, or ameliorate climate change. And it is motivated by one thing only: corporate profits.
America is beginning to look, not so much like a declining empire as a Third World country, where all the (foreign and domestic) corporate heavies make the rules and select the players, for their own global profits.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
American Checkers, Persian Chess
Americans play checkers, the Persians play chess. In Middle East intrigue, Americans are outclassed. The Persians have been around for at least 5,000 years. Americans are johnnys-come-lately.
Americans in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq, contend with Iranian influence in the governments they support. Nuri al Maliki, Iraq's PM, has long-established ties with Iran, and has recently worked out a coalition agreement with the Sadrist party, supported by Iran. What is the US to do? Maliki was supposed to be our man, nurtured and financed by the US.
Now, we find out that Hamid Karzai, Afghan President, our client in Kabul, has a chief of staff, Umar Daudzai, who is not only pro-Iranian, but Iran's conduit for illicit cash in the millions of Euros a month. His mission, it seems, is to poison Afghan-American relations.
The plot thickens: Daudzai and his friends were members of Hezb-i-Islami, a brutal, militant Islamist group led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who now lives in Iran, but has ties to the Taliban. Iran in the west, like Pakistan in the east, maintains ties and provides aid to the Taliban, as well as the government. The intelligence communities of both neighboring countries vie for influence among the Taliban, the President, and with his opponents in Afghan politics.
While Pakistan is our reluctant, or resistant ally, Iran is our rival for power in the region. Yet, both have interests in furthering Afghan stability as well as their own influence; chaos on their borders might provide opportunities to extend their power, but it also endangers their own governments.
Just as the US blundered into an age-old civil war in Iraq--between Shiite and Sunni--a game in which the Persians were deeply engaged, it has done something similar in Afghanistan. Except, the Afghan game is much more complicated. The civil war between the government we installed, and the Taliban, has been ongoing for generations, between Pathans and the peoples of the northern alliance: largely Tajik and Uzbek. Meanwhile, the nations to Afghanistan's east and west have been vying for power in Afghanistan for hundreds of years.
The British Empire marched into Afghanistan from India, and was routed. The Soviets occupied Afghanistan, but were driven out. Will the US leave more gracefully?
Afghanistan's neighbors use more subtle methods: cash bribes, safe refuges, training, and control through their intelligence services. They will outlast the crude Westerners, who think that power comes from more and better weapons. Effective weapons, as the Vietnamese and Iraqis demonstrated, can be stolen, or cobbled together from the wasteful and over-generous supplies of the invader.
Rome in its decline, abandoned its push east into Parthia: the East was too complicated. The US, also a declining empire, is baffled by the complex intricacies of the region. Which will come first: bankruptcy or defeat? Or will the US withdraw in time?
Americans in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq, contend with Iranian influence in the governments they support. Nuri al Maliki, Iraq's PM, has long-established ties with Iran, and has recently worked out a coalition agreement with the Sadrist party, supported by Iran. What is the US to do? Maliki was supposed to be our man, nurtured and financed by the US.
Now, we find out that Hamid Karzai, Afghan President, our client in Kabul, has a chief of staff, Umar Daudzai, who is not only pro-Iranian, but Iran's conduit for illicit cash in the millions of Euros a month. His mission, it seems, is to poison Afghan-American relations.
The plot thickens: Daudzai and his friends were members of Hezb-i-Islami, a brutal, militant Islamist group led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who now lives in Iran, but has ties to the Taliban. Iran in the west, like Pakistan in the east, maintains ties and provides aid to the Taliban, as well as the government. The intelligence communities of both neighboring countries vie for influence among the Taliban, the President, and with his opponents in Afghan politics.
While Pakistan is our reluctant, or resistant ally, Iran is our rival for power in the region. Yet, both have interests in furthering Afghan stability as well as their own influence; chaos on their borders might provide opportunities to extend their power, but it also endangers their own governments.
Just as the US blundered into an age-old civil war in Iraq--between Shiite and Sunni--a game in which the Persians were deeply engaged, it has done something similar in Afghanistan. Except, the Afghan game is much more complicated. The civil war between the government we installed, and the Taliban, has been ongoing for generations, between Pathans and the peoples of the northern alliance: largely Tajik and Uzbek. Meanwhile, the nations to Afghanistan's east and west have been vying for power in Afghanistan for hundreds of years.
The British Empire marched into Afghanistan from India, and was routed. The Soviets occupied Afghanistan, but were driven out. Will the US leave more gracefully?
Afghanistan's neighbors use more subtle methods: cash bribes, safe refuges, training, and control through their intelligence services. They will outlast the crude Westerners, who think that power comes from more and better weapons. Effective weapons, as the Vietnamese and Iraqis demonstrated, can be stolen, or cobbled together from the wasteful and over-generous supplies of the invader.
Rome in its decline, abandoned its push east into Parthia: the East was too complicated. The US, also a declining empire, is baffled by the complex intricacies of the region. Which will come first: bankruptcy or defeat? Or will the US withdraw in time?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Cut Social Security!
The conclusion always is: cut benefits and raise the retirement age. That's how Economists think, apparently. A self-described Economist, said, the way Economists do, that public employees were overpaid (i.e. paid "above the average" for private sector workers) and paid more "generous," hear 'over-generous', pensions. Those "golden years lifestyles" are going to have to change.
And yet, private pensions have become scarcer and scarcer, and remember what happened to retirees' IRA's and 501K's with the stock market crash? This is not progress. The retirement plans of public employees ought to be seen as a model to head for not to dismantle. Are we a humane society, or not? We should find ways to pay for those pensions, and for private pensions as well.
Furthermore, to say public employees earn more is to compare apples to oranges, and the economist knows it: government workers do not work in factories, or in the fields; very few are manual laborers, or work with heavy machinery; and most are more educated than the average.
But still, there is the assumption that benefits must be cut, not that taxes on the rich should be raised.
Why the rich? They have more money than they can spend, and tend to spend more of it abroad, or to speculate with it, thereby fueling asset bubbles. No, their money is not creating jobs. In fact, at the moment, capital is in the business of shedding jobs: when jobs are cut, corporate profits go up. Higher tax rates for the wealthy would create jobs, because they could fund government programs.
Many progressive economists point out something most Americans don't want to hear: Americans pay lower taxes than other developed nations, and the wealthy pay much lower taxes than they do in almost any developed country. Tax havens (i.e. places with even lower taxes) happen to be in poor countries, i.e. in countries with even fewer public services, but with private services westerners buy at low cost--for them, but not for most natives.
It is astounding how little play a mildly progressive politics has in the US. In "liberal" NY State, the highly popular Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, concedes economic policy to conservative positions: cut public sector pay; cut pensions and establish a property tax cap, similar to the one in California. California's tax cap defunded their world-class education system built up even under Reagan. California's experience with the tax cap has been not just an education disaster, but a financial one, too, as their huge deficit demonstrates.
But few dare to propose a "millionaire tax," though the wealthy pay lower tax rates than everyone else; few propose rebating the stock transaction fee: both could yield enough for NY to pay its budget.
We have entered an era, when only the wealthy are allowed to win--the interests of ordinary people are dismissed as "special interests." That kind of society led to Rome's impoverishment and its eventual "fall" in 476. It's happening here.
And yet, private pensions have become scarcer and scarcer, and remember what happened to retirees' IRA's and 501K's with the stock market crash? This is not progress. The retirement plans of public employees ought to be seen as a model to head for not to dismantle. Are we a humane society, or not? We should find ways to pay for those pensions, and for private pensions as well.
Furthermore, to say public employees earn more is to compare apples to oranges, and the economist knows it: government workers do not work in factories, or in the fields; very few are manual laborers, or work with heavy machinery; and most are more educated than the average.
But still, there is the assumption that benefits must be cut, not that taxes on the rich should be raised.
Why the rich? They have more money than they can spend, and tend to spend more of it abroad, or to speculate with it, thereby fueling asset bubbles. No, their money is not creating jobs. In fact, at the moment, capital is in the business of shedding jobs: when jobs are cut, corporate profits go up. Higher tax rates for the wealthy would create jobs, because they could fund government programs.
Many progressive economists point out something most Americans don't want to hear: Americans pay lower taxes than other developed nations, and the wealthy pay much lower taxes than they do in almost any developed country. Tax havens (i.e. places with even lower taxes) happen to be in poor countries, i.e. in countries with even fewer public services, but with private services westerners buy at low cost--for them, but not for most natives.
It is astounding how little play a mildly progressive politics has in the US. In "liberal" NY State, the highly popular Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, concedes economic policy to conservative positions: cut public sector pay; cut pensions and establish a property tax cap, similar to the one in California. California's tax cap defunded their world-class education system built up even under Reagan. California's experience with the tax cap has been not just an education disaster, but a financial one, too, as their huge deficit demonstrates.
But few dare to propose a "millionaire tax," though the wealthy pay lower tax rates than everyone else; few propose rebating the stock transaction fee: both could yield enough for NY to pay its budget.
We have entered an era, when only the wealthy are allowed to win--the interests of ordinary people are dismissed as "special interests." That kind of society led to Rome's impoverishment and its eventual "fall" in 476. It's happening here.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Anarchism 2010-style
They don't wear black masks, and they don't trash police cars. They go to rallies and hold up signs against Obamacare, or Guvmint, or claim Obama is a Muslim. Yes, the Tea Party.
It's not as if the Tea Party doesn't have sponsors. Again, it's not like those masked vandals, who eschew money, itself. The Tea Party anarchists, are for dissolving all government, eventually. Just follow their logic--and their sponsors.
Government isn't supposed to be doing all the things it does now, because, well, maybe they can point to mis-interpretations of our 18th Century Constitution, but really they just insist (against a good deal of evidence to the contrary) that government can do nothing right.
Logically, that will eventually extend to the police and the military. In both cases, private corporations are taking over increasing shares of these functions: private prison corporations and Blackwater/Xie come to mind.
So, the new anarchism hands over all power to huge corporations. Governments wither away. If we could do without government, I'd be happy too, but given the size of our population, and the complexity of our society, government functions would be taken over by corporations: not an improvement.
We cannot do without government functions, collective goods, and a whole host of services we just take for granted, like insuring clean, healthy food, reliable weights and measures, information about the economy, about the people in it. Everyone gains when more people are healthy, so public health is necessary: plagues and epidemics are really bad for business.
The Tea Party opposition to "Obamacare," is generated by vast amounts of money from healthcare corporations that want to keep the best parts--like guaranteed new markets (required by the individual mandate)--while jettisoning costly regulations like no pre-existing conditions. It's also opposed by wealthy ideologues like the Koch brothers.
There is a logical path from one to the other, however: it is empowering corporations and disempowering everyone else. In other words, the new anarchism could eventually usher in a world in which Google provides the economic data--it's attempting to, right now, with the price index--and Xie fights unending, profitable wars.
Do you remember Newt Gingrich proposing that Visa could collect taxes much more efficiently than the IRS?
And who would make the decisions? Why, the Senators and Congressmen and Presidents, who are elected by corporate campaign funds, of course. And they'll do the bidding of the corporations, perhaps meeting informally when disagreements do crop up.
People would only be necessary to pay the bills and provide the underpaid muscle and intellect needed for the corporations to make even greater profits. Corporate owners, i.e. the fewer and fewer people who really own them, would have unlimited wealth. And power.
Voila, Anarchism 2010! Just like Rome circa 477, after its "fall," before wandering marauders finish off most of the Romans. By 500, Rome had shrunk to 20-30,000 people (from over 1 million).
It's not as if the Tea Party doesn't have sponsors. Again, it's not like those masked vandals, who eschew money, itself. The Tea Party anarchists, are for dissolving all government, eventually. Just follow their logic--and their sponsors.
Government isn't supposed to be doing all the things it does now, because, well, maybe they can point to mis-interpretations of our 18th Century Constitution, but really they just insist (against a good deal of evidence to the contrary) that government can do nothing right.
Logically, that will eventually extend to the police and the military. In both cases, private corporations are taking over increasing shares of these functions: private prison corporations and Blackwater/Xie come to mind.
So, the new anarchism hands over all power to huge corporations. Governments wither away. If we could do without government, I'd be happy too, but given the size of our population, and the complexity of our society, government functions would be taken over by corporations: not an improvement.
We cannot do without government functions, collective goods, and a whole host of services we just take for granted, like insuring clean, healthy food, reliable weights and measures, information about the economy, about the people in it. Everyone gains when more people are healthy, so public health is necessary: plagues and epidemics are really bad for business.
The Tea Party opposition to "Obamacare," is generated by vast amounts of money from healthcare corporations that want to keep the best parts--like guaranteed new markets (required by the individual mandate)--while jettisoning costly regulations like no pre-existing conditions. It's also opposed by wealthy ideologues like the Koch brothers.
There is a logical path from one to the other, however: it is empowering corporations and disempowering everyone else. In other words, the new anarchism could eventually usher in a world in which Google provides the economic data--it's attempting to, right now, with the price index--and Xie fights unending, profitable wars.
Do you remember Newt Gingrich proposing that Visa could collect taxes much more efficiently than the IRS?
And who would make the decisions? Why, the Senators and Congressmen and Presidents, who are elected by corporate campaign funds, of course. And they'll do the bidding of the corporations, perhaps meeting informally when disagreements do crop up.
People would only be necessary to pay the bills and provide the underpaid muscle and intellect needed for the corporations to make even greater profits. Corporate owners, i.e. the fewer and fewer people who really own them, would have unlimited wealth. And power.
Voila, Anarchism 2010! Just like Rome circa 477, after its "fall," before wandering marauders finish off most of the Romans. By 500, Rome had shrunk to 20-30,000 people (from over 1 million).
Friday, October 15, 2010
Imperial Water
Water was falling steadily on September 30th, water carried by the prevailing winds all the way from the Gulf of Mexico. It's falling now, too. September's rain reminded me of the tortured history of water between this country and Mexico.
Here, in the Northeast, we usually have an abundance of water, although the "monsoon" we've had broke a six-week drought. But the whole western third of the US has always been deficient in water. The West used to be tagged, on old maps, as 'The Great Western Desert.' This included large parts of California.
Most of the West was also a possession of Mexico, until the Mexican war of 1846-48. The US annexed Texas before the war; after, it took over all the Rocky Mountain and Pacific territories (California, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada) when it won the war, which the US fought for blatant territorial aggrandizement. Americans called it "manifest destiny."
Some of the prized possessions of those territories are the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers. The Colorado flows from Wyoming into Mexico, all the way to Mexico's Gulf of California, or it did. Now, there are times when its flow is negligible by the time it gets to Mexico. It's the main source of water for California's Imperial Valley, one of the richest irrigated agricultural regions in the world.
There was a Mexican-American Water Treaty negotiated in 1944. It allocates more water to the US, from the Colorado and the Rio Grande, so Mexico does not receive the water enjoyed by American farmers and city dwellers in places like LA, the Imperial Valley (aptly named), and Arizona. I've seen lush fields of hay (!) in Arizona's deserts, for example.
So, first, the US took a large part of Mexico, and then it took a good deal of its water. That water is used to grow crops Mexico cannot. Then, to add insult to injury, the US negotiated NAFTA so that US subsidized corn could flood Mexico (where corn/maize first appeared more than two thousand years ago). Mexican peons couldn't compete; subsidized imports drove them from their smallholdings.
American corporations not only wanted to export surplus corn, but to establish maquiladoras over the border. So, the flood of cheap workers created by destroying Mexico's small farms was serendipitous.
However, China's lower labor costs made the maquiladoras less competitive. So, Mexico has a large unemployed, rootless labor force. Is it surprising that Mexicans stream across the Rio Grande, or the Arizona desert? Or that drug trafficking has become one of Mexico's principal industries?
Border States have become "hard-assed" about illegal immigration, but imperial bullying brings consequences. The flood of Chicanos into the US is one.
Lack of water is one of its principal causes.
Here, in the Northeast, we usually have an abundance of water, although the "monsoon" we've had broke a six-week drought. But the whole western third of the US has always been deficient in water. The West used to be tagged, on old maps, as 'The Great Western Desert.' This included large parts of California.
Most of the West was also a possession of Mexico, until the Mexican war of 1846-48. The US annexed Texas before the war; after, it took over all the Rocky Mountain and Pacific territories (California, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada) when it won the war, which the US fought for blatant territorial aggrandizement. Americans called it "manifest destiny."
Some of the prized possessions of those territories are the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers. The Colorado flows from Wyoming into Mexico, all the way to Mexico's Gulf of California, or it did. Now, there are times when its flow is negligible by the time it gets to Mexico. It's the main source of water for California's Imperial Valley, one of the richest irrigated agricultural regions in the world.
There was a Mexican-American Water Treaty negotiated in 1944. It allocates more water to the US, from the Colorado and the Rio Grande, so Mexico does not receive the water enjoyed by American farmers and city dwellers in places like LA, the Imperial Valley (aptly named), and Arizona. I've seen lush fields of hay (!) in Arizona's deserts, for example.
So, first, the US took a large part of Mexico, and then it took a good deal of its water. That water is used to grow crops Mexico cannot. Then, to add insult to injury, the US negotiated NAFTA so that US subsidized corn could flood Mexico (where corn/maize first appeared more than two thousand years ago). Mexican peons couldn't compete; subsidized imports drove them from their smallholdings.
American corporations not only wanted to export surplus corn, but to establish maquiladoras over the border. So, the flood of cheap workers created by destroying Mexico's small farms was serendipitous.
However, China's lower labor costs made the maquiladoras less competitive. So, Mexico has a large unemployed, rootless labor force. Is it surprising that Mexicans stream across the Rio Grande, or the Arizona desert? Or that drug trafficking has become one of Mexico's principal industries?
Border States have become "hard-assed" about illegal immigration, but imperial bullying brings consequences. The flood of Chicanos into the US is one.
Lack of water is one of its principal causes.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Robbers (Almost) in Charge
You really do have to wonder, with a Democratic House and Senate--stalemated by a Republican minority--how a bill to retroactively legalize faulty foreclosures could slip through just before Congress went home. It legalized wholesale larceny! It didn't become law, because there was one honest man who could stop it: President Obama refused to sign it, a pocket veto.
And then there's the prospect of quantitative easing (QE2=printing money) by the Fed. Responsible economists agree: the economy needs more stimulus. The stimulus we've had was only enough to keep us from falling off the cliff. To get out of the high unemployment doldrums, a massive amount of money must be spent. There are two ways to do so. One is to invest in the nation, to increase everyone's wealth--green jobs and industry and updated infrastructure: a second fiscal stimulus. However, with political stalemate, it would be DOA in Congress the minute Obama mentioned it.
So, the other option is for the Fed to print money. This will probably stimulate some people in the economy--the bankers, already rolling in dough! QE 2 would create more money to buy up mortgage-backed securities, so that banks would then have money to--loan more money to the hoi polloi to stimulate the economy? Hah! How about gambling on Wall Street and the commodity exchanges, or investing in booming countries elsewhere? The Fed doesn't require the bankers to spend their new money domestically; they can spend it wherever.
That's one reason why a Fed stimulus is much less effective than a government stimulus; it has what economists call significant "leakage," like heating a house that's full of holes. Further, a Fed stimulus would exacerbate inequality, already at its highest level since 1929. The Fed would be giving banks trillions of dollars and saying: get even richer!
Would this 'stimulus' help ordinary folks? If it creates jobs, but fewer would result than you'd expect for the trillions of dollars created. If QE2 succeeded economically, homeowners might be able to stay in their homes; foreclosures might stop. Ultimately, that could create jobs, as the real estate market rebounded, but it would take awhile. How much of the stimulus would ordinary people see? Not much. QE2 could also unleash inflation, although deflation now is the greater danger.
What it really looks like: gangsters are in control. Not Mafia. No, these gangsters aren't so honorable. They're the bankers, investors, corporate leaders and politicians pillaging the nation, driving the American empire into poverty, while reaping windfalls. How else do you explain Congress passing the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act, legalizing illegal foreclosures?
How much can one man (Obama) do to stand up to organized crime on such a scale?
The prescient have already abandoned ship for places like Taiwan, or Belize.
And then there's the prospect of quantitative easing (QE2=printing money) by the Fed. Responsible economists agree: the economy needs more stimulus. The stimulus we've had was only enough to keep us from falling off the cliff. To get out of the high unemployment doldrums, a massive amount of money must be spent. There are two ways to do so. One is to invest in the nation, to increase everyone's wealth--green jobs and industry and updated infrastructure: a second fiscal stimulus. However, with political stalemate, it would be DOA in Congress the minute Obama mentioned it.
So, the other option is for the Fed to print money. This will probably stimulate some people in the economy--the bankers, already rolling in dough! QE 2 would create more money to buy up mortgage-backed securities, so that banks would then have money to--loan more money to the hoi polloi to stimulate the economy? Hah! How about gambling on Wall Street and the commodity exchanges, or investing in booming countries elsewhere? The Fed doesn't require the bankers to spend their new money domestically; they can spend it wherever.
That's one reason why a Fed stimulus is much less effective than a government stimulus; it has what economists call significant "leakage," like heating a house that's full of holes. Further, a Fed stimulus would exacerbate inequality, already at its highest level since 1929. The Fed would be giving banks trillions of dollars and saying: get even richer!
Would this 'stimulus' help ordinary folks? If it creates jobs, but fewer would result than you'd expect for the trillions of dollars created. If QE2 succeeded economically, homeowners might be able to stay in their homes; foreclosures might stop. Ultimately, that could create jobs, as the real estate market rebounded, but it would take awhile. How much of the stimulus would ordinary people see? Not much. QE2 could also unleash inflation, although deflation now is the greater danger.
What it really looks like: gangsters are in control. Not Mafia. No, these gangsters aren't so honorable. They're the bankers, investors, corporate leaders and politicians pillaging the nation, driving the American empire into poverty, while reaping windfalls. How else do you explain Congress passing the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act, legalizing illegal foreclosures?
How much can one man (Obama) do to stand up to organized crime on such a scale?
The prescient have already abandoned ship for places like Taiwan, or Belize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)