Emperor Mitt?

Perhaps you've heard about the Sensata plant in Freeport, Ill.? Its workers were required to train their Chinese replacements: yes, the manufacturing operation is being relocated to China. Sensata is owned by Bain Capital, the company that Romney founded, the company that pays the majority of his oversized income.

And Romney is going to "get tough with China?"

Right.

Mitt makes it abundantly clear, whenever the subject comes up, that he doesn't manage Bain Capital anymore. He retired from it--either in 1999, when he says he did, or in 2002, when the signed documents say he did. He was the sole owner and CEO. When he retired, Bain Capital didn't hire a new CEO. A management committee manages it, following the business model of its sometime CEO, who still gets the bulk of his income from Bain-related investments, although they're in a "blind trust," wink, wink.

So, about that Sensata plant: it makes high tech automotive parts, and has been highly profitable in Illinois. The plant netted $355 million in 2011, a 16% increase over 2010, part of $1.8 billion in profits to the company that year. Nevertheless, it will be closed down by the end of the year, and its equipment is being shipped to China, which is providing a subsidized new site. A pretty good deal: except for the 170 employees, and the country, since the high tech manufacturing will now be in China, instead. Sensata's owners will profit from the move; they'll deduct the cost of moving from their taxes (a deduction Obama would like to close), and they'll probably be able to defer US taxes on their profits in China--and pay the employees there much less, too.

Is it significant that Romney, with Bain Capital, was an innovator in this kind of operation? It's called off-shoring, and it has cost millions of American jobs. Is this how he's going to "grow American jobs?" Is this how he "knows" how to manage the economy?

The laid off employees of the Freeport plant are camping out in front of the plant and are calling it Bainport. They even have a website with a petition at bainport.com and they've invited Romney to show up, and/or stop the plant's closure. I expect it'll be a long wait.

This really is what Romney's plan for the economy looks like: profits for management, tax breaks for owners, and unemployment for workers. It's part of the monopolization of wealth and power intended by Romney's backers: the .001%, which closely parallels the monopoly of wealth and power held by Roman Senators as the Roman Empire trundled towards its last hurrah. In the fifth century, workers had to become serfs or slaves in order to survive. What will happen to America's workers if Mitt becomes Emperor?

Gilded Age Reaction or Progressive Reform

Obama has to win re-election simply to allow the possibility of a more progressive politics and to prevent an accelerating slide into a revived Gilded Age of Robber Barons. Mitt not only represents the Robber Barons, he is one.

But Obama has been nearly half-bought himself.

Still, that leaves 50% of him that is open to the interests of the rest of us, not just the billionaires. Consider the XL Tar Sands pipeline. Obama's State Department initially passed on it, but under dramatic pressure by environmental activists--surrounding the White House in linked arms, for example--Obama delayed, but did not cancel the project. His department has pushed for a more environmentally benign route, but Obama still might agree to cancel it altogether--if pressured enough.

Romney would have had the protesters arrested and jailed.

If Obama is re-elected, taxes on the wealthy probably will go up and disincentives for outsourcing and offshoring would be a priority. Romney would cut taxes on the wealthy and would encourage offshoring (which he pioneered). It's also likely that Obama would maintain, or lower, tax rates on those least able to pay, maintain the safety net (unemployment insurance, Medicaid, food stamps and entitlements). Romney wants to gut, privatize and merge most, if not all, of these programs.

If Obama is re-elected, the rights of women and gays will be enhanced. If Romney gets elected, they'll be diminished. The same holds true for minorities and immigrants: their rights would be enhanced with Obama, restricted with Romney.

So, why do people support Romney? Why did the Tea Party so capture the GOP that elder statesmen not ideologically pure enough, like Senator Lugar, go down to defeat in their party's primaries? For all his sweet nothings (lies), Romney's attempts in the first debate at softening the hard right positions he's campaigned on are meaningless: he'd be kept in line by the Republican Congress likely to be elected with him if he won.

Obama is no pure progressive. To pull him leftward, we need Democratic progressives like Sherrod Brown in greater numbers in the House and Senate; both bodies need solid Democratic majorities and progressives must mobilize activists on all the issues important to us. Examples: stopping the imperial creep of our military abroad, and our police at home; pushing alternative energies and stopping fracking cold; passing the Dream Act.

Obama is different from Romney, as Gore was different from W. Gore would have responded to the vast demonstrations against starting the Iraq war; W ignored them.

With the improved job numbers, perhaps Obama has a chance. If he does, we also have a chance: to reverse the slide into the kind of lopsided dominance of the few wealthy that characterized the Roman Senators in the fast declining empire of fifth century Rome.

If Romney and Republicans win, the march towards chaos and impoverishment reminiscent of Rome's fall could look inevitable.

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.