The Tar Sands in Alberta: Now that the US pipeline is delayed, Robert Redford, at a Toronto Film Festival, exhorted his Canadian colleagues to save Canada, by stopping the Canadian government from permitting a western pipeline route, over the Rockies and the Cascades, through British Columbia's pristine wilderness and an unspoiled coast, to export the dirty oil to China.
Maybe he was wasting his breath. Canada may be more liberal than the US in some ways, but its parliamentary Federal government has been more thoroughly taken over by Karl Rove's type of conservatives than, so far, in the US: both chambers are controlled by absolute Conservative majorities. The Prime Minister closely controls the majority, even vets every public statement made by his Ministers.
And who paid for the Conservatives? Western (Canadian) oil interests (probably also the Kochs, etc.), the interests turning swathes of Alberta's boreal forest into a wasteland, while they mine and cook the tar sands.
The tar sands will still be piped out. Capitalism will hang us all, even after a hard-fought, much touted victory by environmental groups, spearheaded by Bill McKibben's 350.org, to persuade Obama to stop the XL Keystone pipeline from being built from the tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico. Obama, under pressure, put off a decision till 2013. Republicans will probably yell that Obama gave American jobs to Canadians.
But the real point is: that tar sand oil is going to be developed, no matter what Obama decides, or climate scientists say. It was James Hansen, formerly NASA's top climatologist, who said that if the tar sands are exploited (the equivalent of Saudi Arabia's oil, but much, much dirtier) that for the climate it's "game over."
I hope I'm wrong, but unless there is a massive popular protest in Canada, that physically blocks the westward pipeline, James Hansen may prove prescient. We already see climate change all around us. In the US northeast, there was both freakish weather, including over a foot-deep snowstorm in October with thunder and lightning, and trees turning color later, or curling up brown weeks too early. We've had too much rain, while Texas was literally burning up with drought this summer. Violent storms and tornadoes became more frequent, and hurricanes strengthen more easily.
There is no conspiracy of scientists pushing global warming theory so that governments will be forced to become more socialistic. The money is all on the denialist side, as it is in Canada.
Protests in Canada are just as violently repressed as in the US, and their Prime Minister, Harper, is a fundamentalist Christian. This is what the US will look like if Republicans win both houses of Congress and the Presidency.
The environmental disaster caused by the Roman Empire (Mediterranean deforestation and desertification) will look miniscule compared to the destruction of our benign and livable global climate, unless, somehow, the tar sands exploitation is stopped.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Dodging the Bullet
At least the Democrats on the super-committee didn't cave to the intransigence of the Republican members.
The Republicans claimed that they proposed a compromise, in which they offered tax/revenue increases of $300 billion over 10 years, in addition to their demands to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but their proposal was misleading. It was no compromise, because they also demanded tax cuts totaling many times the $300 billion, by lowering the top income tax rate to 28%.
Unfortunately, the mainstream media seems to buy the Republican line: neither side was willing to compromise. That wasn't true. The Democrats and Obama offered cuts to Medicare that were too large and were offset by tax increases (on the top income earners) that were too small.
It's a good thing that Republicans rejected the Democrats' compromise proposals as too much of a tax increase, and it's a surprise blessing that the Democrats didn't counter with even more capitulation to the Republican agenda of slash, burn and fill the pockets of the super-rich. Perhaps, finally, Democrats are getting the message that you can't compromise with ideological absolutists, who are bent on destroying virtually all programs that benefit anyone but our modern day Roman Senators.
Republicans have become the equivalent of fifth century panegyrists; they sang the praises of the Roman Senators: they had pillaged through politics, instead of legions. Now, we have Republican Congressmen and Senators who yawp about "job creators," even though they're not "creating" jobs. Entrepreneurs and/or corporations do not "create" jobs, they hire people when there is demand for whatever it is they're selling--usually not their creation, either. With the exception of someone like Steve Jobs, most inventors have had their creations ripped off by "entrepreneurs," and haven't profited from their genius. Capitalism rewards people who know how to make money, not people who know how to make things, or think original ideas.
In the fifth century the 1% controlled even more of the wealth: there was much less of it to control. They didn't create wealth; they sequestered it in gold or land. The 1% today can't possibly spend their earnings, nor can they find worthwhile investments in developed nations; they can speculate--hence the wild gyrations of the stock market--and they can invest in developing nations like China, or increasingly, in nations like Vietnam or the Philippines. When they invest in factories, or partnerships in these countries, or service industries like tech assistance in India, they may be hiring, but not in the US.
If they create demand, it isn't here; they are sequestering the wealth, just like the Roman Senators, and just like them, they can't see that the end is coming, because their dominance is unsustainable.
Fairer income distribution, what Republicans label "Socialism," would energize the economy, stimulate demand and wipe out unemployment--and most of the deficit. So, workers should be paid more and executives a lot less.
How would we accomplish that?
The Republicans claimed that they proposed a compromise, in which they offered tax/revenue increases of $300 billion over 10 years, in addition to their demands to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but their proposal was misleading. It was no compromise, because they also demanded tax cuts totaling many times the $300 billion, by lowering the top income tax rate to 28%.
Unfortunately, the mainstream media seems to buy the Republican line: neither side was willing to compromise. That wasn't true. The Democrats and Obama offered cuts to Medicare that were too large and were offset by tax increases (on the top income earners) that were too small.
It's a good thing that Republicans rejected the Democrats' compromise proposals as too much of a tax increase, and it's a surprise blessing that the Democrats didn't counter with even more capitulation to the Republican agenda of slash, burn and fill the pockets of the super-rich. Perhaps, finally, Democrats are getting the message that you can't compromise with ideological absolutists, who are bent on destroying virtually all programs that benefit anyone but our modern day Roman Senators.
Republicans have become the equivalent of fifth century panegyrists; they sang the praises of the Roman Senators: they had pillaged through politics, instead of legions. Now, we have Republican Congressmen and Senators who yawp about "job creators," even though they're not "creating" jobs. Entrepreneurs and/or corporations do not "create" jobs, they hire people when there is demand for whatever it is they're selling--usually not their creation, either. With the exception of someone like Steve Jobs, most inventors have had their creations ripped off by "entrepreneurs," and haven't profited from their genius. Capitalism rewards people who know how to make money, not people who know how to make things, or think original ideas.
In the fifth century the 1% controlled even more of the wealth: there was much less of it to control. They didn't create wealth; they sequestered it in gold or land. The 1% today can't possibly spend their earnings, nor can they find worthwhile investments in developed nations; they can speculate--hence the wild gyrations of the stock market--and they can invest in developing nations like China, or increasingly, in nations like Vietnam or the Philippines. When they invest in factories, or partnerships in these countries, or service industries like tech assistance in India, they may be hiring, but not in the US.
If they create demand, it isn't here; they are sequestering the wealth, just like the Roman Senators, and just like them, they can't see that the end is coming, because their dominance is unsustainable.
Fairer income distribution, what Republicans label "Socialism," would energize the economy, stimulate demand and wipe out unemployment--and most of the deficit. So, workers should be paid more and executives a lot less.
How would we accomplish that?
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Eviction Does NOT = Defeat
What's to become of the OWS movement? The evictions in New York, Oakland, Seattle and other places almost simultaneously bespeak national coordination that was confirmed, inadvertently, by Oakland's mayor, Quan.
But the movement isn't about encampments in various cities. It is about the problems we face as a society, in which a tiny proportion (the one percent) monopolize the growth of wealth in this potentially wealthy world; they demand that people whose incomes are stagnating, or worse, pay the price for any amenities society offers--or do without.
This has been coming for years. Private luxuries proliferated, like toll roads for those who can pay to avoid traffic jams when they commute. Libraries are underfunded, because the wealthy don't need them; they have their own. The same is true of health care: the CEO's etc. have costly insurance policies paid for; why would they be for universal health care that might cost them higher taxes?
An old New Dealer used to say FDR saved Capitalism, because he realized that only by giving people a chance, a stake in the system, could the US in the Great Depression avoid either a Communist revolution or a Fascist takeover. We face the same choices in this Great Recession. Republican conservatives don't recognize that people will revolt, if their only choice is rebellion or misery. Timorous Democrats hardly offer an alternative.
Occupiers, now ousted from some of their encampments, were not slackers, were not losers by choice, when the effective unemployment rate is twice the official rate of 9%, and youth unemployment is higher than that. In addition, young workers are deeply in debt because student aid was reduced and student loans follow you to the grave.
What are people supposed to do, when jobs have been outsourced, along with opportunities? Only the owner class has chances, but even they depend upon people somewhere buying what they're selling. So, occupiers have made a basic point: the system is not working--for them--nor for most who are one job away from disaster.
The Roman Empire had a similar problem, created by the massive import of slaves from its conquests: Roman citizens were driven from jobs and land and the only solution Senators provided was "bread and circuses."
People don't want bread and circuses; they want dignity, meaningful work and a fair share of society's riches. Empires don't provide that; they breed the kind of inequality we're facing, because the tiny international elite, like Halliburton and Xe, grabs all the wealth ripped off in imperial adventures, while honest jobs at home are destroyed.
Evicting the Occupiers won't make that go away; it'll wake people up: the elite don't think about anyone but themselves. The rest of us, the 99%, have to look after each other, have to prevent the modern day Roman Senators from continuing to rip us off and have to claim the wealth we can create together.
But the movement isn't about encampments in various cities. It is about the problems we face as a society, in which a tiny proportion (the one percent) monopolize the growth of wealth in this potentially wealthy world; they demand that people whose incomes are stagnating, or worse, pay the price for any amenities society offers--or do without.
This has been coming for years. Private luxuries proliferated, like toll roads for those who can pay to avoid traffic jams when they commute. Libraries are underfunded, because the wealthy don't need them; they have their own. The same is true of health care: the CEO's etc. have costly insurance policies paid for; why would they be for universal health care that might cost them higher taxes?
An old New Dealer used to say FDR saved Capitalism, because he realized that only by giving people a chance, a stake in the system, could the US in the Great Depression avoid either a Communist revolution or a Fascist takeover. We face the same choices in this Great Recession. Republican conservatives don't recognize that people will revolt, if their only choice is rebellion or misery. Timorous Democrats hardly offer an alternative.
Occupiers, now ousted from some of their encampments, were not slackers, were not losers by choice, when the effective unemployment rate is twice the official rate of 9%, and youth unemployment is higher than that. In addition, young workers are deeply in debt because student aid was reduced and student loans follow you to the grave.
What are people supposed to do, when jobs have been outsourced, along with opportunities? Only the owner class has chances, but even they depend upon people somewhere buying what they're selling. So, occupiers have made a basic point: the system is not working--for them--nor for most who are one job away from disaster.
The Roman Empire had a similar problem, created by the massive import of slaves from its conquests: Roman citizens were driven from jobs and land and the only solution Senators provided was "bread and circuses."
People don't want bread and circuses; they want dignity, meaningful work and a fair share of society's riches. Empires don't provide that; they breed the kind of inequality we're facing, because the tiny international elite, like Halliburton and Xe, grabs all the wealth ripped off in imperial adventures, while honest jobs at home are destroyed.
Evicting the Occupiers won't make that go away; it'll wake people up: the elite don't think about anyone but themselves. The rest of us, the 99%, have to look after each other, have to prevent the modern day Roman Senators from continuing to rip us off and have to claim the wealth we can create together.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Syria and the American Empire
I'm a great admirer of Gandhi and of MLK and of the notion that non-violent protest, civil disobedience, passive resistance are far better than violence. But those strategies take even greater courage and determination, and especially, patience, than facing your oppressor/murderer with your own gun.
But I can understand how men grow impatient, and then lash out violently, or seek out someone who will organize them to do so, even when their movement, or protest, has been overwhelmingly committed to non-violence. Short of another Gandhi, an almost messianic leader, it's unlikely that Syrians can avoid a more violent revolution.
We're witnessing the beginning of this transition in Syria, when it becomes clear that the murderous intent of the government seems almost limitless (kill the country to save it). Qaddaffi had the same intent, although it's possible, hallucinatory as he was, that he really believed what he said, i.e. he was defending The Libyan People.
It is sad to see people with power act so ruthlessly, and it's sad to see that the only rational response is to fight. In this case, it looks like it is (the only rational response), but unless there is international support, the opposition will get nowhere against a well-armed security force and army.
That's why they rebelled nonviolently in the first place.
So, unless other governments or private entities (like Saudi oil sheiks) support the insurgents, it's more likely that they'll all be captured or slaughtered than that they will prevail.
I am not suggesting that the US aid the insurgents, and I'm especially not suggesting that the US and/or NATO do what they just did in Libya.
What's a good thing? The Arab League just endorsed sanctions against Bashar al-Assad, without (as far as we know) any US intervention. This is the one area in which I'm in almost total agreement with the right-wing perennial Republican Presidential candidate, Ron Paul.
The US should stand back and let these regional groupings solve their own problems. Sooner or later, the neighborhood is going to have to do something about a disorderly neighbor, and outsiders should let them sort it out.
That would also be a vastly more democratic foreign policy than the US has ever had, and it would effectively dismantle the whole imperial edifice. Americans, soon, would not have to support a 3/4 of a Trillion dollar a year military, there would be no budget deficit, and debt would automatically shrink as the nation raced forward with growing civilian business and burgeoning civilian jobs (more than twice the number of defense jobs that would be lost).
But Ron Paul won't win: the imperial side will, in both parties, although Obama may not have been a part of it, at first. There's too much money to be lost by the powerful, who are now identified as the 1%. The Roman Empire got bogged down in Syria, and we could too.
But I can understand how men grow impatient, and then lash out violently, or seek out someone who will organize them to do so, even when their movement, or protest, has been overwhelmingly committed to non-violence. Short of another Gandhi, an almost messianic leader, it's unlikely that Syrians can avoid a more violent revolution.
We're witnessing the beginning of this transition in Syria, when it becomes clear that the murderous intent of the government seems almost limitless (kill the country to save it). Qaddaffi had the same intent, although it's possible, hallucinatory as he was, that he really believed what he said, i.e. he was defending The Libyan People.
It is sad to see people with power act so ruthlessly, and it's sad to see that the only rational response is to fight. In this case, it looks like it is (the only rational response), but unless there is international support, the opposition will get nowhere against a well-armed security force and army.
That's why they rebelled nonviolently in the first place.
So, unless other governments or private entities (like Saudi oil sheiks) support the insurgents, it's more likely that they'll all be captured or slaughtered than that they will prevail.
I am not suggesting that the US aid the insurgents, and I'm especially not suggesting that the US and/or NATO do what they just did in Libya.
What's a good thing? The Arab League just endorsed sanctions against Bashar al-Assad, without (as far as we know) any US intervention. This is the one area in which I'm in almost total agreement with the right-wing perennial Republican Presidential candidate, Ron Paul.
The US should stand back and let these regional groupings solve their own problems. Sooner or later, the neighborhood is going to have to do something about a disorderly neighbor, and outsiders should let them sort it out.
That would also be a vastly more democratic foreign policy than the US has ever had, and it would effectively dismantle the whole imperial edifice. Americans, soon, would not have to support a 3/4 of a Trillion dollar a year military, there would be no budget deficit, and debt would automatically shrink as the nation raced forward with growing civilian business and burgeoning civilian jobs (more than twice the number of defense jobs that would be lost).
But Ron Paul won't win: the imperial side will, in both parties, although Obama may not have been a part of it, at first. There's too much money to be lost by the powerful, who are now identified as the 1%. The Roman Empire got bogged down in Syria, and we could too.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Extraordinary Times
There are crowds massing in the streets in places as far-flung as Nashville, TN, Oakland, CA and New York City, protesting inequality, corporate control and an unresponsive political system.
On the other hand, despite clear poll support for government to do something to create jobs, the Republican House and Senate Minority block any part of Obama's proposed jobs bill, persistently and repeatedly. Some Democrats are too scared of them to vote for jobs, either.
A Republican town council votes to raise property taxes by 29%: building revenues are down and the local government has decided to buy, move and renovate "historic" buildings, while also laying off employees. When challenged for the insensitivity of their action, one of the council members stated: "This isn't a democracy; it's a republic," explaining that they were elected to decide our best interests. He also stated that no one in the Town would have difficulty paying the increased taxes! He continued to insist on this, even after several townspeople rose to say, tearfully, that the tax increase would be an incredible burden for them, because they were barely hanging on as it was.
A Republican analyst has noted that Republicans gain their vision of 'reality' from talking to other Republicans, and that Herman Cain's ignorance of the world was simply a reflection of this self-referential loop.
If Herman Cain's insists that a 9% flat tax, corporate tax and national sales tax will be sufficient to pay for everything government does (his 9-9-9 proposal), while benefiting everyone, then Republicans accept Cain's argument, even though none of it is true.
If Rick Perry and the rest claim that cutting taxes will increase government revenue, then Republicans repeat the claim, although it has been proven false on every occasion after JFK's tax cut. It was the reason for the massive deficits under Reagan, and then under Bush W, but still, Republicans repeat it as gospel.
McConnell and Boehner reject all tax increases on the wealthy, because, they claim, they are the "job creators," even though they're not creating jobs and taxes are already at historic lows. Every Republican repeats the tag "job creators," and no tax increases.
A takeover is taking place: Republicans are manipulating redistricting, and voter eligibility, so that millions of voters--mostly poor and Democratic--will be excluded from the polls. At the same time, Fox and radio personalities deliver a skewed worldview: people aren't hurting, they're simply whiners demanding handouts from the "real producers"--welfare cheats threatening virtuous corporate leaders, who are paid hundreds of times their workers pay--more if they fire hundreds or thousands of them.
Are we being taken over by a cult? Republicans remind me of the Roman Church, which took over the fragments of the Roman Empire, after barbarian devastation in the Fifth Century. It ruled with magical thinking, too, all through the medieval period.
Maybe the Occupations are our chance for reclaiming the 21st century.
On the other hand, despite clear poll support for government to do something to create jobs, the Republican House and Senate Minority block any part of Obama's proposed jobs bill, persistently and repeatedly. Some Democrats are too scared of them to vote for jobs, either.
A Republican town council votes to raise property taxes by 29%: building revenues are down and the local government has decided to buy, move and renovate "historic" buildings, while also laying off employees. When challenged for the insensitivity of their action, one of the council members stated: "This isn't a democracy; it's a republic," explaining that they were elected to decide our best interests. He also stated that no one in the Town would have difficulty paying the increased taxes! He continued to insist on this, even after several townspeople rose to say, tearfully, that the tax increase would be an incredible burden for them, because they were barely hanging on as it was.
A Republican analyst has noted that Republicans gain their vision of 'reality' from talking to other Republicans, and that Herman Cain's ignorance of the world was simply a reflection of this self-referential loop.
If Herman Cain's insists that a 9% flat tax, corporate tax and national sales tax will be sufficient to pay for everything government does (his 9-9-9 proposal), while benefiting everyone, then Republicans accept Cain's argument, even though none of it is true.
If Rick Perry and the rest claim that cutting taxes will increase government revenue, then Republicans repeat the claim, although it has been proven false on every occasion after JFK's tax cut. It was the reason for the massive deficits under Reagan, and then under Bush W, but still, Republicans repeat it as gospel.
McConnell and Boehner reject all tax increases on the wealthy, because, they claim, they are the "job creators," even though they're not creating jobs and taxes are already at historic lows. Every Republican repeats the tag "job creators," and no tax increases.
A takeover is taking place: Republicans are manipulating redistricting, and voter eligibility, so that millions of voters--mostly poor and Democratic--will be excluded from the polls. At the same time, Fox and radio personalities deliver a skewed worldview: people aren't hurting, they're simply whiners demanding handouts from the "real producers"--welfare cheats threatening virtuous corporate leaders, who are paid hundreds of times their workers pay--more if they fire hundreds or thousands of them.
Are we being taken over by a cult? Republicans remind me of the Roman Church, which took over the fragments of the Roman Empire, after barbarian devastation in the Fifth Century. It ruled with magical thinking, too, all through the medieval period.
Maybe the Occupations are our chance for reclaiming the 21st century.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Dollar Collapse!
It hasn't happened yet, but financial gurus are predicting the dollar will collapse, and "your American lifestyle" with it--unless you follow their prescriptions.
These gurus are describing a real problem: US indebtedness to the rest of the world. But the Fed didn't cause this, and it's not because The Government spends too much money; it's because we all do--abroad.
"Free Trade" agreements have advantaged American corporations. They have been able to export their manufacturing and services to lower wage, lower tax countries with lax or no regulations. They've driven American wages down and unions out, because American workers can only compete by earning less: wages have stagnated since the 1970's, while corporations have earned higher and higher profits. Furthermore, everyone buys imported goods and services, even when a product claims "made in America." Most have a huge amount of imported components, even if assembled here.
So, what can workers do? Until the bust, they adapted by working two plus jobs, depending on other family members working, and when these strategies weren't enough, they borrowed from their homes. Wall Street was awash in cash, encouraging wilder and wilder speculation--before the collapse, and after. That's why so much of the economy migrated to the financial sector; workers were providing it money through debts, and corporations were providing it money through overseas profits going to the 1%, who "earn" too much money to spend; so, they "invest" it.
Free trade means freedom for corporations, not freedom for workers, and it means importing nearly everything. So, how do we pay for the goods and services we no longer produce? We borrow through fiat dollars, which have, greatly depreciated since Nixon closed the "gold window" in 1971. Gold sold for between $1,726 and $1,743 on 11/2/11; but its price was set by the US until 1971 at a guaranteed $35 per ounce. Money supply has increased 13-fold since 1971.
Fiat money is designed to inflate a little bit each year: the Fed's target is about 2%. Moderate inflation stimulates the economy; deflation would accelerate depression.
But the real problem is: we are paying dollars created by the Fed, for goods and services abroad, while not selling enough to earn the Euros/Yen/Yuan, etc. to pay for those dollars. The "Free Trade" agreements, and policies encouraging corporations to export jobs and import goods have created the huge trade debt.
The trade debt causes government budget deficits, especially when the only people enriched by "free trade" (our Roman Senators) don't pay enough taxes, while everyone else is impoverished by it and needs help: "bread and circuses."
The dollar and the economy would regain strength, if Americans stimulated domestic production, creating jobs, got off imported oil and penalized corporations exporting jobs/production. It appears, however, that the "one-percent," like the Senators of the late Roman Empire, don't want to allow such reforms.
Perhaps the OWS movement can force their hand.
These gurus are describing a real problem: US indebtedness to the rest of the world. But the Fed didn't cause this, and it's not because The Government spends too much money; it's because we all do--abroad.
"Free Trade" agreements have advantaged American corporations. They have been able to export their manufacturing and services to lower wage, lower tax countries with lax or no regulations. They've driven American wages down and unions out, because American workers can only compete by earning less: wages have stagnated since the 1970's, while corporations have earned higher and higher profits. Furthermore, everyone buys imported goods and services, even when a product claims "made in America." Most have a huge amount of imported components, even if assembled here.
So, what can workers do? Until the bust, they adapted by working two plus jobs, depending on other family members working, and when these strategies weren't enough, they borrowed from their homes. Wall Street was awash in cash, encouraging wilder and wilder speculation--before the collapse, and after. That's why so much of the economy migrated to the financial sector; workers were providing it money through debts, and corporations were providing it money through overseas profits going to the 1%, who "earn" too much money to spend; so, they "invest" it.
Free trade means freedom for corporations, not freedom for workers, and it means importing nearly everything. So, how do we pay for the goods and services we no longer produce? We borrow through fiat dollars, which have, greatly depreciated since Nixon closed the "gold window" in 1971. Gold sold for between $1,726 and $1,743 on 11/2/11; but its price was set by the US until 1971 at a guaranteed $35 per ounce. Money supply has increased 13-fold since 1971.
Fiat money is designed to inflate a little bit each year: the Fed's target is about 2%. Moderate inflation stimulates the economy; deflation would accelerate depression.
But the real problem is: we are paying dollars created by the Fed, for goods and services abroad, while not selling enough to earn the Euros/Yen/Yuan, etc. to pay for those dollars. The "Free Trade" agreements, and policies encouraging corporations to export jobs and import goods have created the huge trade debt.
The trade debt causes government budget deficits, especially when the only people enriched by "free trade" (our Roman Senators) don't pay enough taxes, while everyone else is impoverished by it and needs help: "bread and circuses."
The dollar and the economy would regain strength, if Americans stimulated domestic production, creating jobs, got off imported oil and penalized corporations exporting jobs/production. It appears, however, that the "one-percent," like the Senators of the late Roman Empire, don't want to allow such reforms.
Perhaps the OWS movement can force their hand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)