The Trouble with Royal Weddings

Royal weddings excite the masses, even in this long-lost colony, and even the classes. A surprising number have a craving for pomp and circumstance, and the homey, back-of-the-house type glimpses of the Royals, themselves.

Royal weddings leave me cold, royal gossip does not interest me in the slightest. However, royal weddings, royal this's and royal that’s's do play important political roles.

For example, as style-setters, royal weddings promote the "wedding industry," which pushes cookie-cutter weddings that are way too expensive for most young couples, or their usually strapped parents. The extravagance of the royal wedding this Friday will be recreated thousands of times in imitation over the next few years. And Americans, as well as Brits, Canadians and so on, will want to emulate the winsome couple--to the distress of their bank accounts, which are nowhere near as substantial as Prince William's.

The British Royals are very wealthy, very upper-caste, very white and pretty boring--on purpose, now, after Diana. Their lifestyle is not one most people can afford, but people want to emulate it. To me, that's unfortunate. One example of this unconscious emulation are the sweeping lawns in suburbs and exurbs here--no one mowed lawns until they got a gander at the aristocratic piles in Britain, with broad sweeps of what the British called "shaved grass." Those expanses, and the aped expanses here (where a man sits on a $5000 mower and mows for hours), are simply extravagance, lands that could be used for pasture, vegetables or allowed to grow wild. At Buckingham Palace, goes the story, an admiring American tourist asked a gardener, "How do you grow such a beautiful lawn?" The answer: "Oh, it's easy, Sir. Just keep mowing it for 300 years." I should add: English rain probably helps a lot, too: lawns in Britain, maybe, but in Arizona?

The left wing of the Labour Party wanted to abolish the monarchy until recently. The royals, they argued, epitomize the old class system in which a few are extremely wealthy and the rest may even be poor, but are grateful to the few for their spectacle. Monarchy popularizes a retrograde class system.

My daughter got married on April Fools; she and her groom were married at his mother's smallish house, in the back yard--in costume. Family and friends pitched in to carve hors-d'oeuvres or arrange trays. Everyone wore zany costumes: I was a Roman Senator. I've been to many weddings--my wife, as interfaith minister, officiated at many--but this was the most fun and memorable I've seen. The wedding cost about $1,500.

Too bad Darshann and Peter couldn't be models, instead of Kate and William. A lot of young couples would avoid incurring huge debts. And the elites wouldn't be even more emboldened to act like British aristocracy--which modeled itself after Roman Senators.

The Newsletter Path to Riches

Let's say XXX is a "penny stock"promoted for the day. Promoted by online penny stock newsletter writers. Xxx went up from 1.12 to 1.46 in one day, because of the hype. If you invested $10,000 in Xxx on Monday, it would be worth over $13,035.71 on Tuesday. On Wednesday it went down again. Where is that money from small-time investors going?

Apparently, this speculation is raising money in $500,000 increments, for the man who is Xxx, a professional, who offers services to companies, as a company on the Over the Counter market; it's not clear that there is any more than one man in the company, but he's raised millions this way.

What kinds of services does this one-man company offer: contract advice with other companies, advising and facilitating offshore contracting, "to lower your costs," technology licensing and acquisitions of other companies, i.e. mergers.

Will Xxx rise tomorrow? One of the more revealing statements I've read on these penny newsletter sites is: "It rose to .01 before it fell back to .001, but it's set to rise even further this time."

What's going on here? I've been dabbling in this field for six months, even investing in some of the weightier "penny stocks" promoted; so far I've only lost a few hundred bucks. None of the stocks promoted have gained a dime; one has lost 77% of its value, another 47%. I did not invest in Xxx, but the second loser was a Chinese stock that collapsed when its CEO was caught fiddling the books. I didn't get the news--about the CEO--until too late.

I also invested in a silver mine, but right now, while silver goes through the roof, the mine shares lost 90 cents!

This is a game. The only people who win are either full-time gamblers (they call themselves day traders), or entrepreneurs who manipulate the market to raise money for themselves--or their companies.

But that's the point, isn’t it? They raise money for business enterprises. Small-time investors rush in to strike it rich with the next Microsoft, Google, or Facebook. It's the gamblers who make money on the boobs buying penny stocks to make their fortunes. The gamblers do play a role: they provide incentives to the hungry public, drawing in millions, billions of dollars from small-time investors, who are easily gulled.

But how else do you get rich when the producers of anything tangible, the actual producers, get little more than subsistence? "If the poor don't like being poor, then why don't they get rich?" asked a student in one of my classes. By investing in speculative stocks? It brings money out of the proverbial mattresses, into the hands of entrepreneurs, fiddling CEO's and speculators.

This is Late Capitalism; it's like the 'Late Roman Empire,' where all the gold flowed upward, into the hands of the predatory few.

Trump and Emperor Maximus

Donald Trump is awful! But a lot of Republicans think he should run for President: 17%, as many as for Huckabee, only behind Mitt Romney, and 20% of tea party ID'd Republicans expressed support.

Trump has his special quirks, one being his birther schtick, which may or may not be a genuine concern. At least one commentator points out birtherism's racist undertones, or at least that it could encourage racism. Birtherism feeds the fears of whites who cannot believe we elected an African-American President; they want to believe he's an impostor, regardless of all the data proving his birth in Hawaii. Why? Because he's black?

Bitherism and racism are one thing: what's even scarier, however, is that Trump represents the new breed of brash, political billionaire: he dismisses his closest rival, Mitt Romney, as "a small businessman," and claims that he, Trump, is "much, much bigger than he is." And that, dear America, is why he feels he should be President: he has more money.

Romney's business past may come back to haunt him. He's no small businessman: Bain Capital, the private equity firm he helped found, buys and sells businesses, and not only employs several hundred, but as with most such firms, it has also been in the business of firing hundreds or more of the purchased companies in order to "streamline" them.

This may be a portent of the kind of politics we'll be offered, either in the next few cycles, or for the foreseeable future. Billionaires vs multi-millionaires, these self-funded candidates run in part to protect the interests of their super-rich brethren, who will probably support them with their own money, too.

I would pair Trump with Roman Emperor: Maximus (ruled 3 months in 455); he was known as the wealthiest of the Senatorial class; he conspired to assassinate Valentinian III, in part, because the Emperor had seduced his reputedly beautiful wife, but also to gain power for himself. His "rule" was a disaster; it gave the Vandal King, Gaiseric, the pretext to sack Rome. "Emperor" Maximus was torn apart by an enraged Roman mob as the Vandals approached.

The question is: will all the money spent by and for someone like Trump/Romney, seduce Americans?

Or, will people begin to get it: the filthy rich want to keep it all for themselves. Congressman Ryan's budget makes clear what the future could begin to look like with people like Trump or Romney in charge. They'd cut taxes on themselves, the wealthy (Ryan calls them "job creators" even when, like Romney they are job destroyers). Those tax cuts would be paid for by draconian cuts to services (including Medicare and Social Security) and cut tax loopholes that benefit the poor and what remains of the middle class.

In late Imperial Rome, the middle class had two options: seek protection from the wealthy, becoming serfs, or escaping to the hills as bandits. Is that what we want?

Stories Win Nations

"Job creators" are being unfairly attacked, their money stolen from them: there are only two kinds of people in the world, producers and users, or parasites.

Parasites control governments everywhere and legally steal from producers, through taxes: governments are intrinsically parasitic. Governments produce nothing; they suck blood out of those who do. If there were no governments, merely security forces to protect property, then free enterprise would truly flourish.

That's why conservatives support tax cuts for the wealthy, and cuts in services for everyone else; they tell each other the above story: it all makes sense. Ayn Rand makes heroes of supposed producers, and villains of anyone who doesn't "produce." Roman Senators thought like that.

The villains are ordinary people, especially those who have the temerity to think they should be paid decently; they support unions because they're greedy and lazy. Roman elites felt that way about slaves. Also, governments unfairly penalize producers by caving into the mob--like weak Roman Emperors.

Unions, of course, are just gangsters, gangs to rip off the honest man's sweat, for which he worked so hard--on his telephone all day! That's why union busting, even with baseball bats and armed guards, is justified.

Paul Ryan is a Randist, apparently. It's likely Ron and Rand Paul are, too. And many tea partiers. Ayn Rand's story (above) doesn't really make sense, but that doesn't matter, it's a framework for the emerging GOP worldview; it makes emotional sense to them.

What doesn't make sense? First, if all but the few are producers, then, workers contribute nothing? What if the mighty entrepreneur hoards his money, pays his workers peanuts, and demands police repression to keep wages down? What if every hero entrepreneur acts likewise, in this perfect Randian world? Who will have the money to buy goods and services? Luxury markets do not a mass-market make. Secondly, if there is no government, who will provide collective goods like roads, rules of the market, standard measures, let alone security for everyone? (Governments do produce quite a lot, actually). Third, would everyone else agree to live in misery because they don't sit behind an Executive desk?

It doesn't matter to radical conservatives whether their arguments make sense. What matters is the story. It's surprising how persuasive it is to people whose interests are diametrically opposed.

The basic problem that progressives face is: they don't have a compelling story, not anymore. Progressives did have a story, a very compelling one, in the 1930's. It has been waning in strength ever since. The Great Recession didn't revive it, nor did Obama. Big business media won't revive it; it's "anti-business."

A spellbinding movie or novel might create a new story, or revive the old one--union solidarity defeats oppressive bosses; slaves rebel against cruel masters (Spartacus lost). Progressives need a story, badly, or we'll plunge headlong into something far worse than Rome's fall in 476.

Obama and Class War

In his deficit-cutting address Wednesday, Obama's approach to the Defense budget was vague, but at least he pointed to Defense as a large target for cuts that must be made, some by re-examining the mission and role of our military in a "changing world."

Here's an example of his problem: while the administration considers transferring some Egyptian aid from military to economic programs, "some lawmakers fear that would mean cutting sales of U.S. military hardware." [Just Foreign Policy 4/13]. When there's peace, we can't sell arms. That's one reason why the US sticks its nose in globally: to sell arms. Our adventures are not only investments in future arm sales; they are also driven by the defense industry's insatiable appetite for ever-larger Defense budgets.

The arms dynamic is hard to overcome, as our sudden involvement in Libya demonstrates. Our allies are urging a more active role on the US, after it stepped back, making way for Europeans to lead (and pay the costs). But they want us because our huge Defense budget gives us capabilities no one else can bring to bear--in Libya, or elsewhere.

As a Medicare recipient, I've always felt Medicare should negotiate drug prices, but Bush banned negotiated prices; pharmaceutical corporations charge Medicare outrageous prices because they can. Obama proposes allowing Medicare to negotiate prices as a deficit-cutting measure, a clever move. His vision to change the way providers are paid makes sense, too. Real deficit-cutters should like both reforms: they would cut the deficit considerably. Medicare was set up to be a financial train-wreck by Bush/Cheney's prescription drug and privatization schemes (Medicare Advantage programs, etc.).

Obama's deficit cutting approach is reassuring; his riposte to Republican Ryan's deficit-cutting budget proposal was pointed. He declared he'd never permit Ryan's proposed voucher-ization of Medicare.

Even more heartening was Obama's recognition that the wealthy have done well while others still suffer, and they owe it to the nation to make a proportionally greater contribution (through tax hikes), to enable necessary services and investments in the future. The tax cuts proposed by Ryan, he noted, would take from those who needed help and give to those who didn't: not the kind of America Obama (or I) believe in.

Did Obama blame Wall Street? No, but his DOJ is simultaneously pursuing mortgage fraud by Goldman, JP Morgan, Washington Mutual and others--even possible criminal prosecution.

Obama claimed his proposal would cut $4 trillion from the debt--as much as Ryan, but with high-end tax increases, not draconian slashes to services and tax cuts for the wealthy.

It's class war part II. Who will prevail: the new Roman Senators, billionaires like the Koch brothers, represented by Republicans, or Obama, now representing ordinary people? It's a classic choice: Obama's way maintains democracy; Ryan's would usher in something comparable to Rome's last years, with Senators dominant and everyone else impoverished and powerless.

Taxes and Class War

When Republicans insist and some reluctant Democrats agree: we have to cut the deficit and slow the rise in the debt, they look in the wrong direction, on purpose. Certainly, the US is the largest debtor in (and to) the world, and our debt continues to rise, increasingly to Japan and China.

The Republicans' budget guru, Congressman Paul Ryan, wants to cut $6 trillion from government spending in the next ten years--and also cut $4 trillion in taxes to corporations and high-income earners! It becomes more clearly class war when you see his targets for cutting spending: programs that benefit the poor, like education, Medicare and Food Stamps, programs and tax loopholes that benefit the shrinking "middle class," including Medicare, Social Security and mortgage and state income tax deductions. He wants these cuts, and more, to pay for the tax cuts.

The US is a relatively lightly taxed nation, especially for high-income earners and corporations. While conservatives cite the 35% corporate tax rate as the highest in the developed world, two-thirds of corporations pay no taxes, and few pay the full 35%, because of all the loopholes for which they've lobbied strenuously. The total tax breaks for corporations has been estimated to cost $660 billion in the next five years. Further, most high-income earners don't pay much of their taxes at the highest rate (cut by W and continued with Obama's reluctant signature in the tax deal last December). CEO's and other wealthy people earn most of their income in capital gains or dividends, taxed at 15%, about half the rate of "earned income." There are hedge fund directors who earn billions a year, and pay only at the 15% rate; they are hardly over-taxed.

We need to solve our deficit and debt problem by raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations and by re-configuring our defense, bringing most of our troops home, shrinking our forces, and recognizing that we can't afford to police the world. Those two measures alone would more than solve our deficit and debt problem, if we also allowed Medicare to negotiate drug prices as well as streamline its operations, as planned in the Health Care reform act.

We need to change the conversation. Our income tax is hardly progressive, and overall, our tax system takes more from the poor and middle class than it does from the wealthy. Our tax system hasn't yet become as cruelly inequitable as the Roman system in which the wealthy paid almost nothing and everyone else paid oppressively high taxes, or sold themselves into serfdom. But that's the direction in which Republicans like Paul Ryan want to go. Some Democrats are bought off, because billionaires have a lot of money. Some Democrats don't have a clue. And liberals like Feingold have been driven out by just some of the big boys' money, leading all politicians to draw their own conclusions.

Do ordinary people stand a chance?

Noblesse Oblige

There used to be such a thing as noblesse oblige. I've heard people argue that FDR was its epitome. He was a slightly downwardly mobile aristocrat (they were spending "principle," not just income, FDR lamented). He found empathy for the people out there suffering in the Great Depression, possibly because of his own sudden disability from polio.

Noblesse Oblige makes sense for the elite, FDR argued, although most of his own class disagreed. His argument, the argument of the intellectuals of the New Deal, makes sense today: unless you moderate the extremes of income, unless you make sure the needy are taken care of and unless you ensure that more and more have the opportunity to make something of themselves, you will either have revolution, or fascism. Democracy will die, or be destroyed.

Of course, in the 1930's it was easy to see the alternatives: the USSR and the 1000-year Reich. Today, the elite feel falsely secure: there is no alternative. Communism is dead and Fascism is invisible. Maybe this is what Capitalism Triumphant looks like.

The Nobel economist, Joseph Stiglitz, points out that when a society becomes as unequal as ours, when 1% rule and gain more and more of its wealth--the US today--there is a loss of community. The elite have less and less in common with the lower classes, and reject any need to help them even when they are in dire economic straits. They cut funds to services, which don't serve the elite, like public libraries, Head Start, even Food Stamps and unemployment insurance. And they cut taxes on themselves. After all, it's their money.

The US has a myth of a classless/middle class, mobile society that never really existed; it's now, by income and wealth, the most class stratified of any developed country. Our politics shows that.

While cutting everything else, the elite support the military. Their children won't serve in it, but they can make money on all our military adventures; it's good for business.

The GOP represents the elite rather faithfully, but a good number of Democrats represent them, too, due to bribes (campaign funds) and/or a common class. So far, there are very few like FDR, even among Democrats.

But FDR's argument is relevant: without real reform--and government helping people in need--by creating jobs, for example--the chances for radical revolution increase exponentially. Revolution could be either of the right or of the left, but the elite ultimately lost even with the right-wing totalitarian dictatorships they favored in the past.

Yet, clearly, the GOP doesn't buy FDR's argument.

Most Democrats bought it long ago, but forgot about it.

Protests may be the only way to get even progressives to remember--and act, despite their Wall Street supporters. Otherwise, we'll end up serfs or slaves to the new Roman Senators--until there is an explosion: a Spartacan uprising, or a radical revolution.

Budget Insanity

How can Republicans believe that they'll win votes for "courage" to stand up to the poor on behalf of all those victimized rich guys? Unlike the Beatles' song, they seem to think that money can buy them love.

If Fox and corporations can spin this, then we have wholly entered into a corporate-run nation, in which only the CEO's and billionaires count--perhaps GOP activists will gain perks like the apparatchiks in the Soviet CP, or the higher ups in Germany's NSDAP. The rest of us just better keep our heads low, and work hard for our diminishing crusts of bread.

Congressman Ryan, the GOP budget boss, proposes draconian cuts to services, eventual privatization of Medicare at the likely expense to future seniors, and then proposes cutting high-end tax rates by a whopping 10%, while closing middle class loopholes like the mortgage deduction.

So, let's be clear about what he's proposing: take from the poor and middle class, who are hurting from this recession. Take from them some of the services that are enabling them to survive, take from them the loopholes that make middle class tax rates affordable, take from the people who are being thrown out of work, losing their homes--or, know they are at risk for one or both. Take from them the assurance that in their old age, their health care will be there for them.

What does this great subtraction buy? The first thing is tax cuts for the rich and corporations (almost half of which avoid paying any taxes). What will that buy? More speculation, not more jobs. The rich are already sitting on trillions of dollars; they are not investing in job creation--except possibly in places like China or Brazil.

A large enough cut in government spending to reduce the size of government, could also buy a renewed recession--unless we're lucky enough to have a real recovery before it takes effect.

Which brings us to the budget impasse on the 2011 budget: Boehner and his cohorts demand huge cuts, but they also demand programmatic cuts, like defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood. The programmatic cuts won't cut the deficit, so their argument for them is disingenuous. But the huge cuts to states, to services, to health care, to programs could be a recessionary strong right fist to the economy, especially since the tax cuts to everyone have only enabled unemployment to be pushed back a little; the elite aren't investing their gains in jobs; they're just expecting their workers to work harder--without unions, of course.

So, Ryan and Boehner, and those behind them, want to shove us on the economic path built by the late Roman Empire, in which a few own virtually everything, and everyone else is a slave or a serf.

It weakened Rome, too.