It 's not as if the parallels are any less evident, nor that our march to the end of empire isn't any less swift, It's that I'm tired and tired of writing about it: it may happen, anyway. Furthermore, as many of you have no doubt noticed, this website is becoming increasingly out of date, even if it is prescient.
I have not taken down dated pages, written in the heat of the 2008 campaign and even before. This website was first conceived about the time of the 2006 Congressional campaign, in some ways the obverse of what happened in 2010, which was the beginning of the overt counter-revolution.
The 'revolution,' you may have noticed, was limited, and terribly short.
Like many of you, I was optimistic then, that the parallels to the downfall of the Western Roman Empire would prove temporary, once we understood what was happening.
But it's happening. All you have to do is translate Roman Senator into multi-millionaire/billionaire (MMB), and voila! We don't have a Romney as President. Yet, we have the precursors to wealthy Senator Petronius Maximus (455), the first Senator to become Emperor (short-lived) after the Diocletian reforms. Now we have billionaires increasingly assertive of their money power attempting to control government, or to buy it.
We also have a strengthening political movement funded by the MMB class, which exhibits fundamental contempt for anyone not connected to what the Romans called the honestiores, the wealthy stars of the economic, cultural and social firmament. These are the few people who rub elbows, while enjoying more than half of the wealth the poor and wealthy nations of the world are tirelessly creating.
Ave, Atque Vale was what the gladiators are supposed to have said, before the Emperor, or his representative, as they were about to go into battle in the coliseums: I'm saying it in this roundabout way.
I've saved all the website pages, even the archived blogs, in one large word file. At some point, I may revive the website, updated, or dated, at another web-host. For now, I'm going to forego paying for all the bells and whistles, because I don't need them. And, as I wrote at the beginning: I'm tired, especially of writing about the declining American Empire.
I'm attempting again to write fiction. Writing Attila as Told To His Scribes and I, Zerco (both available as Amazon Kindle books) preceded this website, and writing other novels (I hope) will follow.
If I revive this website, an announcement will be posted on this blogspot companion site: http://roman-empire-america-now.blogspot.com/ I will keep this site simply to post, occasionally, about the state of affairs in the years going forward. I don't know how many more years I will have, since I'll be 75 in May, but my mother still can't let go at 101.
So, GOODBYE! But also, HELLO.
Showing posts with label Roman Senators. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roman Senators. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Feudalism and Now
The Roman Senatorial class, during their period of economic and political dominance (ca 300-476), invented European feudalism. The Senators had huge latifundia, often scattered from the north to the south of the Empire, rendering them close to self-sufficient. Originally, powered by slaves during the earlier era of conquests, after Diocletian's reign (284 to 305), slaves became less available (no conquests, only holding off the hordes, and usurpers). Yet, there were willing hands to work the huge estates. People--poor to yeomen to middle class--were depopulating the unsustainable cities and unprotected lands; they were desperate for work, any work--and safety, from the state as much as from the barbarians. They became serfs, with nearly the same lack of rights as slaves, although they were legally free. They were, legally, the humiliores (the humble), as contrasted with the honestiores (the honored), who owned the lands, and the government, too, with only the increasingly barbarian military as competition for control.
The late Empire was in a state of coexistence between the military, largely manned by German tribesmen, increasingly led by them, or their Romanized sons, and the Senators, who controlled the Empire's bureaucracy, and an increasing share of the land. By convention and law, Emperors could only come from the military, or the ruling imperial family. Since Diocletian, Senators were excluded from military service, on the principle that otherwise they'd be too powerful.
What's relevant to us, in this description of a feudal system ad initio, is that it looks as if the radical "conservative" worldview is becoming increasingly similar to that of the Roman Senators. The whining billionaire, who compares a hike (of 8%?) to his taxes to the Nazis' extermination of the Jews, is only one example. Another is the State Legislator, who campaigns to end Food Stamps for 100,000 people in his State, while receiving Medicaid and other taxpayer-paid disability compensation, because he was paralyzed when either he, or his equally drunken friend, drove down a ravine. So, not only does he have someone tying his tie, at taxpayer expense, but he wants to take away the food stamps 100,000 people (blameless, unlike him) depend on in Oklahoma. Another is practically any Republican legislator, or executive, and too many Democrats, who viscerally ally with wealth and power. The corollary is to look increasingly on those without wealth and power as people who are fundamentally disfigured, morally, not physically. Physically, of course, the poor are strong enough; they're just lazy, and given to drugs and sponging off Uncle Sam.
This kind of worldview justifies cutting Food Stamps, raising taxes on the poor--switching from income to sales taxes, for example--and at the same time, cutting taxes on the rich, and on business, "to attract" business, or talent. The epitome of this worldview might be refusing to extend unemployment insurance, while hiking subsidies or contracts to wealthy corporations. The reason given for opposing unemployment extensions is: 'who's paying for it,' but there is no empathy displayed by proponents for the losers. People who can't find jobs after 79 weeks, aren't usually unemployed by choice; they simply can't find jobs, and the longer they're out of the workforce, the less employable they are.
What happens to such people? Somehow, most of them survive, but because they're desperate, they'll do almost anything: like "crowd work" for job entrepreneurs, for a dollar an hour, or hauling radioactive waste for minimum wage, or, the even more desperate, or morally weak, may see various forms of crime as the means to survival.
This isn't happening by accident; it's happening because the extremely wealthy isolate themselves from the rest of us, and know that our misery feeds their ease and luxury, and besides, from their worldview, they deserve it and we deserve less than the crumbs from their groaning tables.
We probably won't call the next era feudalism. For one thing, the successor nobility to the Roman Senators, gained a sense of noblesse oblige, born perhaps from surviving together during the barbarian takeover: look after your dependents and they'll support you. Now, our contemporary Roman Senators don't feel any obligation to look after anyone but themselves and their own.
So what, if the climate is permanently f...ked, helped immeasurably by the likes of the Koch brothers, profiting from destroying it! The elite can live in climate-controlled estates, villages or cities with enough dependents surrounding them to do the work, while everyone else, outside, starves, thirsts, freezes or boils in the uninhabitable environment humans have created.
How do we avoid this outcome? Overthrow upper-class dominance; turn their class war against them. Restore balance. How?
Note, the above blog will be the last posted on the site roman-empire-america-now.com. Occasional blogs will be posted on this site. A new host for the above website may appear, if I can successfully transfer it.
The late Empire was in a state of coexistence between the military, largely manned by German tribesmen, increasingly led by them, or their Romanized sons, and the Senators, who controlled the Empire's bureaucracy, and an increasing share of the land. By convention and law, Emperors could only come from the military, or the ruling imperial family. Since Diocletian, Senators were excluded from military service, on the principle that otherwise they'd be too powerful.
What's relevant to us, in this description of a feudal system ad initio, is that it looks as if the radical "conservative" worldview is becoming increasingly similar to that of the Roman Senators. The whining billionaire, who compares a hike (of 8%?) to his taxes to the Nazis' extermination of the Jews, is only one example. Another is the State Legislator, who campaigns to end Food Stamps for 100,000 people in his State, while receiving Medicaid and other taxpayer-paid disability compensation, because he was paralyzed when either he, or his equally drunken friend, drove down a ravine. So, not only does he have someone tying his tie, at taxpayer expense, but he wants to take away the food stamps 100,000 people (blameless, unlike him) depend on in Oklahoma. Another is practically any Republican legislator, or executive, and too many Democrats, who viscerally ally with wealth and power. The corollary is to look increasingly on those without wealth and power as people who are fundamentally disfigured, morally, not physically. Physically, of course, the poor are strong enough; they're just lazy, and given to drugs and sponging off Uncle Sam.
This kind of worldview justifies cutting Food Stamps, raising taxes on the poor--switching from income to sales taxes, for example--and at the same time, cutting taxes on the rich, and on business, "to attract" business, or talent. The epitome of this worldview might be refusing to extend unemployment insurance, while hiking subsidies or contracts to wealthy corporations. The reason given for opposing unemployment extensions is: 'who's paying for it,' but there is no empathy displayed by proponents for the losers. People who can't find jobs after 79 weeks, aren't usually unemployed by choice; they simply can't find jobs, and the longer they're out of the workforce, the less employable they are.
What happens to such people? Somehow, most of them survive, but because they're desperate, they'll do almost anything: like "crowd work" for job entrepreneurs, for a dollar an hour, or hauling radioactive waste for minimum wage, or, the even more desperate, or morally weak, may see various forms of crime as the means to survival.
This isn't happening by accident; it's happening because the extremely wealthy isolate themselves from the rest of us, and know that our misery feeds their ease and luxury, and besides, from their worldview, they deserve it and we deserve less than the crumbs from their groaning tables.
We probably won't call the next era feudalism. For one thing, the successor nobility to the Roman Senators, gained a sense of noblesse oblige, born perhaps from surviving together during the barbarian takeover: look after your dependents and they'll support you. Now, our contemporary Roman Senators don't feel any obligation to look after anyone but themselves and their own.
So what, if the climate is permanently f...ked, helped immeasurably by the likes of the Koch brothers, profiting from destroying it! The elite can live in climate-controlled estates, villages or cities with enough dependents surrounding them to do the work, while everyone else, outside, starves, thirsts, freezes or boils in the uninhabitable environment humans have created.
How do we avoid this outcome? Overthrow upper-class dominance; turn their class war against them. Restore balance. How?
Note, the above blog will be the last posted on the site roman-empire-america-now.com. Occasional blogs will be posted on this site. A new host for the above website may appear, if I can successfully transfer it.
Monday, February 3, 2014
Class War Requires XL Approval
>We should discourage, not encourage more oil and gas drilling and tar sands mining. "All of the above" (Obama's energy policy) will contribute significantly to a destroyed climate--is already. Only renewable, non-greenhouse gas-emitting energy sources deserve subsidies--unless we want to force our grandchildren to live in enclosed artificial climates, or not live at all.
It would make a good science fiction story: Rich people and their dependents living in huge domed villages and towns, while poor people try to survive outside of them.
Isn't this really what's in store for us if billionaires like the oil-soaked Kochs get to 'realize their investments' in all those fossil fuels heating up the planet?
Think about the trillions invested in oil/gas reserves, in the new fracking technology and in the mushrooming gas and oil leases. Big money is driven to realize high returns on its investments. That's why they're willing to spend many millions to get their way with governments and why it's so important to buy up Congress and even the Presidency. Think of all that money as small, additional investments to secure and realize profits from their very large holdings in oil, gas, tar sands, shale oil reserves and in the equipment and infrastructure (like the XL pipeline) to bring those substances to market.
Control by the few extremely wealthy means rising inequality, surveillance of everyone, militarized police, a large military, huge prison populations and growing numbers of surplus people, some of whom can be counted upon to do any dirty work the very rich need. Desperation is useful.
Not all of the extremely rich will admit it, but it's likely that most believe that anyone who doesn't have money has only himself to blame: obviously inferior, the undeserving poor.
In the late Roman Empire, the Senatorial class believed they deserved to lord it over everyone else, and they did, sometimes quite brutally. It was legal for a master to kill his slave, and it was legal for him to whip his serfs to death--and rape them, too, male or female. Senators also avoided paying most taxes.
Does the above read like an extreme version of what radical conservatives are trying to buy with their Tea Party millions? No, now we're too civilized: we imprison all those who challenge existing social arrangements, who cause chaos, violence and insecurity: whipping is for Singapore.
We don't have slaves and serfs--it's cheaper to exploit immigrants without rights, and then cut wages for anyone with a job, while demanding more and more work for the same wage. Why can they do this? They've destroyed most union jobs, weakened unions, traded away our manufacturing base, then plundered the economy through Wall Street, throwing millions out of work; they've also bought government stalemate. High unemployment and cutting off benefits is to the billionaires' advantage: desperate people are more easily controlled.
It's happening, now!
It would make a good science fiction story: Rich people and their dependents living in huge domed villages and towns, while poor people try to survive outside of them.
Isn't this really what's in store for us if billionaires like the oil-soaked Kochs get to 'realize their investments' in all those fossil fuels heating up the planet?
Think about the trillions invested in oil/gas reserves, in the new fracking technology and in the mushrooming gas and oil leases. Big money is driven to realize high returns on its investments. That's why they're willing to spend many millions to get their way with governments and why it's so important to buy up Congress and even the Presidency. Think of all that money as small, additional investments to secure and realize profits from their very large holdings in oil, gas, tar sands, shale oil reserves and in the equipment and infrastructure (like the XL pipeline) to bring those substances to market.
Control by the few extremely wealthy means rising inequality, surveillance of everyone, militarized police, a large military, huge prison populations and growing numbers of surplus people, some of whom can be counted upon to do any dirty work the very rich need. Desperation is useful.
Not all of the extremely rich will admit it, but it's likely that most believe that anyone who doesn't have money has only himself to blame: obviously inferior, the undeserving poor.
In the late Roman Empire, the Senatorial class believed they deserved to lord it over everyone else, and they did, sometimes quite brutally. It was legal for a master to kill his slave, and it was legal for him to whip his serfs to death--and rape them, too, male or female. Senators also avoided paying most taxes.
Does the above read like an extreme version of what radical conservatives are trying to buy with their Tea Party millions? No, now we're too civilized: we imprison all those who challenge existing social arrangements, who cause chaos, violence and insecurity: whipping is for Singapore.
We don't have slaves and serfs--it's cheaper to exploit immigrants without rights, and then cut wages for anyone with a job, while demanding more and more work for the same wage. Why can they do this? They've destroyed most union jobs, weakened unions, traded away our manufacturing base, then plundered the economy through Wall Street, throwing millions out of work; they've also bought government stalemate. High unemployment and cutting off benefits is to the billionaires' advantage: desperate people are more easily controlled.
It's happening, now!
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
The Richest, Most Powerful Nation
In the world.
We spent $672,879,000,000 on war-making in 2012 (we call it "Defense," and don't think about it). That may be why the Department of War became the Department of Defense--although there were bureaucratic reasons, as well. Anyway, we may be the most powerful militarily, but part of the reason for that is that we're somehow persuaded, year after year, to spend on "Defense" as much at least as the five next "most powerful" nations combined. But the most powerful nation cannot control the world.
It shouldn't try. We may be "the richest" nation, but we have a lot of poor people. Nevertheless, we'd rather spend money on military toys and warriors, than on helping to maintain people through unemployment insurance, who still cannot find jobs: there are far fewer jobs than job seekers.
Further, austerity's stupidity is causing disasters all over the world.
Tepid growth in the US compares to what austerity has done to nations like Greece and Spain--despite, in Spain's case, conservative fiscal policy--the result: Depression-level unemployment.
In the US, Republicans boast they forced Democrats to cut off the long-term unemployed. Dismissive phrases they use: "a way of life," "rip off artists," and unemployment is an "easy Street" where "fraud" is "rampant." Democrats are faced with a dilemma that doesn't trouble Republicans. Republicans don't believe in government, anyway, so there's no felt obligation to make it work for people--at least people who aren't CEO's or hedge fund artistes.
Democrats seek the money represented by wealthy and corporate interests, too, but they're torn: they tend to believe that government can be a force for good: FDR was their hero. If in order for government to work at all, the long-term unemployed have to be sacrificed, well, the greater good, some reason….
The bottom line is: the most uncompromising, well-funded side, appealing to a minority of ill-informed white people, gets to call the shots, setting the agenda.
Even the New York Times apparently assumes that Social Security and Medicare are going to have to be cut, despite a growing appeal among progressives for expansion, not contraction of Social Security, in response to the disappearance of private pensions, or fully funded public ones. The media attempt to eliminate any dialog about whether Social Security needs to be expanded, instead of contracted, despite the fact that it's self-funding and the payroll tax, is easily modified. It could be raised on the people paying too little, to make the tax no longer regressive; it subtracts a larger share from earnings below $115,000, than for those above that.
The GOP wages class warfare: progressives must fight back, like Senator Warren, not "go along" with elite greed. Americans should reject the elite's takeover, so reminiscent of the Roman Senators' monopoly of wealth in the Fifth Century.
We spent $672,879,000,000 on war-making in 2012 (we call it "Defense," and don't think about it). That may be why the Department of War became the Department of Defense--although there were bureaucratic reasons, as well. Anyway, we may be the most powerful militarily, but part of the reason for that is that we're somehow persuaded, year after year, to spend on "Defense" as much at least as the five next "most powerful" nations combined. But the most powerful nation cannot control the world.
It shouldn't try. We may be "the richest" nation, but we have a lot of poor people. Nevertheless, we'd rather spend money on military toys and warriors, than on helping to maintain people through unemployment insurance, who still cannot find jobs: there are far fewer jobs than job seekers.
Further, austerity's stupidity is causing disasters all over the world.
Tepid growth in the US compares to what austerity has done to nations like Greece and Spain--despite, in Spain's case, conservative fiscal policy--the result: Depression-level unemployment.
In the US, Republicans boast they forced Democrats to cut off the long-term unemployed. Dismissive phrases they use: "a way of life," "rip off artists," and unemployment is an "easy Street" where "fraud" is "rampant." Democrats are faced with a dilemma that doesn't trouble Republicans. Republicans don't believe in government, anyway, so there's no felt obligation to make it work for people--at least people who aren't CEO's or hedge fund artistes.
Democrats seek the money represented by wealthy and corporate interests, too, but they're torn: they tend to believe that government can be a force for good: FDR was their hero. If in order for government to work at all, the long-term unemployed have to be sacrificed, well, the greater good, some reason….
The bottom line is: the most uncompromising, well-funded side, appealing to a minority of ill-informed white people, gets to call the shots, setting the agenda.
Even the New York Times apparently assumes that Social Security and Medicare are going to have to be cut, despite a growing appeal among progressives for expansion, not contraction of Social Security, in response to the disappearance of private pensions, or fully funded public ones. The media attempt to eliminate any dialog about whether Social Security needs to be expanded, instead of contracted, despite the fact that it's self-funding and the payroll tax, is easily modified. It could be raised on the people paying too little, to make the tax no longer regressive; it subtracts a larger share from earnings below $115,000, than for those above that.
The GOP wages class warfare: progressives must fight back, like Senator Warren, not "go along" with elite greed. Americans should reject the elite's takeover, so reminiscent of the Roman Senators' monopoly of wealth in the Fifth Century.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
What the Hell?
What the hell are people supposed to do, if they can't find a job, because they're still aren't enough of them, because…?
Republicans refuse to extend unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed, and propose cutting $40 billion from the Food Stamps budget, as well as advocating cuts to most social programs, while advocating tax cuts for the wealthy. I'd call that class war.
Face it: the very wealthy, more or less the billionaire class, are using their money, judiciously, to insure that they control government, instead of vice-versa. The rest of us are just obstacles to be run over, with a torrent of dollars, made possible by Citizens United.
Democrats? They don't know what hit 'em. They whimper that not extending the long-term unemployment benefits is unwise, maybe even inhumane, but those at the fount of all Democratic Wisdom say: Democrats will try to pass additional legislation--from the Senate.
Who loses? All of us, even the billionaires, if they'd only see it. If you don't give people other choices, they'll have to turn to crime. They'll either hurt others, themselves, end up in prison, or usually both. The cost to society? Do we really want to spend even more on prisons than we do now? Do we want to put away more and more of the "free people" of these United States, which already has the highest rate of incarceration of any developed nation?
There are better solutions, like spending a little bit now to support the unemployed, and a lot more to create needed jobs. There is no magic to this: it's simply that a nation has to invest in itself if it's going to have a future. Siphoning off all the proceeds into the hands of so few--the .001%--almost guarantees decline.
That's where we're headed if these guys win. Maybe, with victories like Warren's and DiBlasio's, the tide could be turning, but there's always that counter-tide of money.
Only if a large enough enraged mass of people rebel against this absurd system, will it ever change. People have to realize how they're being ripped off, every minute. Finance is the largest siphon, of your money to theirs, but there are others in every sector, siphoning off to them the wealth people create. Almost all the increase in wealth since the financial collapse ended up in the hands of a very few extremely wealthy: even though everyone worked for it.
No one rebelled in Fifth Century Rome. Miscreants were randomly burned alive from public lampposts and the barbarians were invading--as well as defending them.
Rome fell, largely because an extremely wealthy class, the Senators, monopolized wealth, and then refused to pay for maintaining the Empire they ran and from which they'd profited so immensely. Most didn't survive the chaos of barbarian dominance in Europe.
Could that be a lesson, even to the billionaires, perhaps?
Republicans refuse to extend unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed, and propose cutting $40 billion from the Food Stamps budget, as well as advocating cuts to most social programs, while advocating tax cuts for the wealthy. I'd call that class war.
Face it: the very wealthy, more or less the billionaire class, are using their money, judiciously, to insure that they control government, instead of vice-versa. The rest of us are just obstacles to be run over, with a torrent of dollars, made possible by Citizens United.
Democrats? They don't know what hit 'em. They whimper that not extending the long-term unemployment benefits is unwise, maybe even inhumane, but those at the fount of all Democratic Wisdom say: Democrats will try to pass additional legislation--from the Senate.
Who loses? All of us, even the billionaires, if they'd only see it. If you don't give people other choices, they'll have to turn to crime. They'll either hurt others, themselves, end up in prison, or usually both. The cost to society? Do we really want to spend even more on prisons than we do now? Do we want to put away more and more of the "free people" of these United States, which already has the highest rate of incarceration of any developed nation?
There are better solutions, like spending a little bit now to support the unemployed, and a lot more to create needed jobs. There is no magic to this: it's simply that a nation has to invest in itself if it's going to have a future. Siphoning off all the proceeds into the hands of so few--the .001%--almost guarantees decline.
That's where we're headed if these guys win. Maybe, with victories like Warren's and DiBlasio's, the tide could be turning, but there's always that counter-tide of money.
Only if a large enough enraged mass of people rebel against this absurd system, will it ever change. People have to realize how they're being ripped off, every minute. Finance is the largest siphon, of your money to theirs, but there are others in every sector, siphoning off to them the wealth people create. Almost all the increase in wealth since the financial collapse ended up in the hands of a very few extremely wealthy: even though everyone worked for it.
No one rebelled in Fifth Century Rome. Miscreants were randomly burned alive from public lampposts and the barbarians were invading--as well as defending them.
Rome fell, largely because an extremely wealthy class, the Senators, monopolized wealth, and then refused to pay for maintaining the Empire they ran and from which they'd profited so immensely. Most didn't survive the chaos of barbarian dominance in Europe.
Could that be a lesson, even to the billionaires, perhaps?
Monday, October 28, 2013
Government For the Few
There was a brief period in European and American politics, when the governors believed, at least, that they were working for the good of all. In the US, this spanned from the Progressive era to the Great Society.
The end, and the ultimate failure, of the Great Society was the result of imperial hubris: the quagmire of Vietnam. It made the trend toward social democracy unaffordable, while enriching and empowering a few. Many of the new rich financed the counterrevolution against "welfare as we know it," and highly progressive income taxes, and, well, the whole Progressive to Liberal to social democratic tendencies in governance, i.e. government that aids the many who need help, not the few who are privileged enough already.
There were similar movements of reform and social democracy in most of Europe in this same period: some earlier, some later.
But that era is past; it was a short interlude between the thousands of years when governments naturally existed to benefit the very few at the expense, or misery, of the many. The Roman Empire was no egalitarian paradise, certainly. From start to finish, it depended on the labor of slaves, who probably made up well over half the population. Slaves had to be continually replaced. Bad ones sent to galleys and mines only lasted a few years. Even good slaves would have to be replaced after 40 years of service.
Even the vaunted Athenian Democracy, of course, depended on slaves.
Where do slaves come from? Conquest. This was even true of African slavery in the Americas. Europeans conquered Africa first by taking advantage of the absence of effective states (ones that controlled their territories), and the multiplicity of potential allies, as well as enemies. Europeans did, ultimately take over, i.e. conquer most of Africa, no longer to sell slaves, but because they had penetrated the continent in order to buy them, in the first place.
When Rome began to lose territory, instead of conquering new lands, the supply of slaves became more erratic. There were floods of them when an invading barbarian army was defeated, but many more were carried off by successful barbarian raids and wars, and then sold back to the slave-hungry Romans. Attila did that after all his successful campaigns of pillage, rape and slaughter. Slaves were the most valuable spoil of all.
What does this have to do with today? Today's Roman Senators are the billionaires who finance and inspire all the attempts to roll back or abolish all the reforms and programs benefiting the many. Even though they, the one-percent, the .001 percent, have prospered beyond even the imaginings of Hollywood sycophants, they want more, much more. Where can the predators turn now, since government has already given them so many favorable contracts, and breaks in taxes like the hedge funders' "carried interest" clause?
Let's raid Social Security and Medicare! they chorus.
They are more like Attila than they know!
Comments? Click on 'continue;' scroll down.
The end, and the ultimate failure, of the Great Society was the result of imperial hubris: the quagmire of Vietnam. It made the trend toward social democracy unaffordable, while enriching and empowering a few. Many of the new rich financed the counterrevolution against "welfare as we know it," and highly progressive income taxes, and, well, the whole Progressive to Liberal to social democratic tendencies in governance, i.e. government that aids the many who need help, not the few who are privileged enough already.
There were similar movements of reform and social democracy in most of Europe in this same period: some earlier, some later.
But that era is past; it was a short interlude between the thousands of years when governments naturally existed to benefit the very few at the expense, or misery, of the many. The Roman Empire was no egalitarian paradise, certainly. From start to finish, it depended on the labor of slaves, who probably made up well over half the population. Slaves had to be continually replaced. Bad ones sent to galleys and mines only lasted a few years. Even good slaves would have to be replaced after 40 years of service.
Even the vaunted Athenian Democracy, of course, depended on slaves.
Where do slaves come from? Conquest. This was even true of African slavery in the Americas. Europeans conquered Africa first by taking advantage of the absence of effective states (ones that controlled their territories), and the multiplicity of potential allies, as well as enemies. Europeans did, ultimately take over, i.e. conquer most of Africa, no longer to sell slaves, but because they had penetrated the continent in order to buy them, in the first place.
When Rome began to lose territory, instead of conquering new lands, the supply of slaves became more erratic. There were floods of them when an invading barbarian army was defeated, but many more were carried off by successful barbarian raids and wars, and then sold back to the slave-hungry Romans. Attila did that after all his successful campaigns of pillage, rape and slaughter. Slaves were the most valuable spoil of all.
What does this have to do with today? Today's Roman Senators are the billionaires who finance and inspire all the attempts to roll back or abolish all the reforms and programs benefiting the many. Even though they, the one-percent, the .001 percent, have prospered beyond even the imaginings of Hollywood sycophants, they want more, much more. Where can the predators turn now, since government has already given them so many favorable contracts, and breaks in taxes like the hedge funders' "carried interest" clause?
Let's raid Social Security and Medicare! they chorus.
They are more like Attila than they know!
Comments? Click on 'continue;' scroll down.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Modern Fascism
Thirty-five years: the judge split the difference for Bradley/Chelsea Manning. Defense lawyers asked for 20, the prosecution asked for 60-90.
Now we know: if we happen upon the government acting illegally, or immorally, we must shut our eyes, because that's the Government. They can do no wrong--unless, according to the GOP, they spend too much on frivolous things like Food Stamps.
But Security? Never ask. Don't even look! If you work for Government, however, you better look--at your fellow employees to insure a colleague doesn't become another Manning or Snowden.
There was a time, when we pointed derisively at the USSR, because they had secret police and the Gulag. Everyone there was expected to report on everyone else, and the primitive censorship, fear and constant monitoring was effective, for a while, in suppressing popular interests--or rationality--in favor of the Communist Party elite. It was woefully inefficient, not least because there was no free flow of information.
The new American system of dictatorship is much more sophisticated, so sophisticated that if there wasn't someone like Bradley Manning or Ed Snowden spilling out the secrets of what the Government is really doing, no one would really know for sure that they were being manipulated and controlled surreptitiously. Now we know: what Government tells the compliant media is becoming as reliable as Pravda or Izvestia. And that's on top of having a militarized police and the most prisoners per capita, suffering the harshest treatment.
In the late Roman Empire, there was an extreme concentration of wealth held by the Senatorial class, similar to today's inequality. The Senators also controlled the civil imperial government. The military was a separate entity, increasingly drawn from the "barbarians" they were continually fighting. Social and political control was more fragmented. Misinformation and fantasy was rampant. The Emperor had an army of informers, but was mostly concerned with court and elite intrigue. The Senators held life and death powers over their serfs--and exercised it freely. The cities were in chaos, just like Detroit, but, worse than bankruptcy, corrupt gangs ran them.
Are we headed in that direction? One party of the duopoly can't even raise taxes in Texas on highly profitable oil companies to keep their roads paved, roads largely destroyed by heavy oil company truck traffic. The other party appears to be made up of those who can be bought, but are less reliable for corporate interests, punctuated by a few honest souls.
But when a putatively liberal President presides over record deportations, record whistleblower prosecutions, covert killing and an apparently out of control surveillance state, you wonder: when did we lose our democracy? Most of the press and public don't seem to care. What we have in democracy's stead is overlapping institutions, including Government departments, corporations (including media), the military-security industry and the extremely wealthy, attempting to coordinate and strengthen their control:
We could call it "modern Fascism."
Now we know: if we happen upon the government acting illegally, or immorally, we must shut our eyes, because that's the Government. They can do no wrong--unless, according to the GOP, they spend too much on frivolous things like Food Stamps.
But Security? Never ask. Don't even look! If you work for Government, however, you better look--at your fellow employees to insure a colleague doesn't become another Manning or Snowden.
There was a time, when we pointed derisively at the USSR, because they had secret police and the Gulag. Everyone there was expected to report on everyone else, and the primitive censorship, fear and constant monitoring was effective, for a while, in suppressing popular interests--or rationality--in favor of the Communist Party elite. It was woefully inefficient, not least because there was no free flow of information.
The new American system of dictatorship is much more sophisticated, so sophisticated that if there wasn't someone like Bradley Manning or Ed Snowden spilling out the secrets of what the Government is really doing, no one would really know for sure that they were being manipulated and controlled surreptitiously. Now we know: what Government tells the compliant media is becoming as reliable as Pravda or Izvestia. And that's on top of having a militarized police and the most prisoners per capita, suffering the harshest treatment.
In the late Roman Empire, there was an extreme concentration of wealth held by the Senatorial class, similar to today's inequality. The Senators also controlled the civil imperial government. The military was a separate entity, increasingly drawn from the "barbarians" they were continually fighting. Social and political control was more fragmented. Misinformation and fantasy was rampant. The Emperor had an army of informers, but was mostly concerned with court and elite intrigue. The Senators held life and death powers over their serfs--and exercised it freely. The cities were in chaos, just like Detroit, but, worse than bankruptcy, corrupt gangs ran them.
Are we headed in that direction? One party of the duopoly can't even raise taxes in Texas on highly profitable oil companies to keep their roads paved, roads largely destroyed by heavy oil company truck traffic. The other party appears to be made up of those who can be bought, but are less reliable for corporate interests, punctuated by a few honest souls.
But when a putatively liberal President presides over record deportations, record whistleblower prosecutions, covert killing and an apparently out of control surveillance state, you wonder: when did we lose our democracy? Most of the press and public don't seem to care. What we have in democracy's stead is overlapping institutions, including Government departments, corporations (including media), the military-security industry and the extremely wealthy, attempting to coordinate and strengthen their control:
We could call it "modern Fascism."
Saturday, July 6, 2013
American Liberalism and the Democratic Party
American liberalism wasn't just about social issues like gay marriage and immigration. American liberalism was the closest thing Americans had to the movements in Europe and elsewhere: they promoted economic equality, fair tax systems, labor representation and economic democracy. Europeans labeled them democratic socialism, or social democracy. In the US, we rarely used such terms; they smacked of Socialism, even Communism.
European democratic socialism had its base in political parties either affiliated with, or a part of, the labor movement. Labor in the US has been closer to Democrats than Republicans, at least since FDR, but the Democrats were never a labor party. Since Clinton's "new Democrats," it has become increasingly pro-business and lukewarm to labor.
Somewhere between Carter and Clinton, Democrats pretty much jettisoned economic democracy in favor of campaign funds, and found they could successfully appeal to middle class voters with social arguments like: gay rights, civil rights and pro-choice policies. That left them free to take more pro-business and even pro-wealthy class positions that would make it easier to raise campaign funds, enabling them to win elections.
The Rooseveltian idea that Democrats should strive for economic rights, like Freedom from Want was shoved aside: rich people gave money, the middle class voted for Democrats, the poor didn't turn out to vote in any great numbers--and most of them voted for Democrats, anyway, so they would get the crumbs--and the rhetoric.
Dividing off economic democracy and equal opportunity from social issues like gay marriage, gives Democrats a progressive tilt, but they never stopped the Reagan Counter-revolution. Democrats collaborated on tax-cuts for the wealthy, and adopted corporate-friendly policies like repealing Glass-Steagall, promoting NAFTA and now the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Obama is as much involved in updating of the new Democrats as his irascible associate, Rahm Emanuel, current mayor of Chicago, presiding over the most public school closings (largely in poor neighborhoods) of any large city, a part of "austerity" politics: cutting government's social services.
It's no accident that Obama proposes to cut Social Security benefits--and other government benefits, as well--by adopting the "chained CPI" measure for adjusting payments to the cost of living. He's the first Democratic President to dare suggest such a thing. It's also no accident that he presides over an invasive surveillance program and is hawkish on drones. By being for progressive social issues, he can get a pass on his surrender to the Military-Industrial-Security-Complex and Democrats can fatten on Defense-related campaign funds. In his political campaigns, despite record numbers of small donors, Obama depended financially on big bucks given by people Democrats used to call "fat cats."
Democrats have been co-opted by the contemporary class of "Roman Senators:" Nader's epithet: "not a dime's worth of difference" from Republicans almost rings true--except for social policy.
We need a democratic revival not based on either of the current political parties. N.B. My paternal family has been Democrats at least since Franklin Pierce (1853).
European democratic socialism had its base in political parties either affiliated with, or a part of, the labor movement. Labor in the US has been closer to Democrats than Republicans, at least since FDR, but the Democrats were never a labor party. Since Clinton's "new Democrats," it has become increasingly pro-business and lukewarm to labor.
Somewhere between Carter and Clinton, Democrats pretty much jettisoned economic democracy in favor of campaign funds, and found they could successfully appeal to middle class voters with social arguments like: gay rights, civil rights and pro-choice policies. That left them free to take more pro-business and even pro-wealthy class positions that would make it easier to raise campaign funds, enabling them to win elections.
The Rooseveltian idea that Democrats should strive for economic rights, like Freedom from Want was shoved aside: rich people gave money, the middle class voted for Democrats, the poor didn't turn out to vote in any great numbers--and most of them voted for Democrats, anyway, so they would get the crumbs--and the rhetoric.
Dividing off economic democracy and equal opportunity from social issues like gay marriage, gives Democrats a progressive tilt, but they never stopped the Reagan Counter-revolution. Democrats collaborated on tax-cuts for the wealthy, and adopted corporate-friendly policies like repealing Glass-Steagall, promoting NAFTA and now the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Obama is as much involved in updating of the new Democrats as his irascible associate, Rahm Emanuel, current mayor of Chicago, presiding over the most public school closings (largely in poor neighborhoods) of any large city, a part of "austerity" politics: cutting government's social services.
It's no accident that Obama proposes to cut Social Security benefits--and other government benefits, as well--by adopting the "chained CPI" measure for adjusting payments to the cost of living. He's the first Democratic President to dare suggest such a thing. It's also no accident that he presides over an invasive surveillance program and is hawkish on drones. By being for progressive social issues, he can get a pass on his surrender to the Military-Industrial-Security-Complex and Democrats can fatten on Defense-related campaign funds. In his political campaigns, despite record numbers of small donors, Obama depended financially on big bucks given by people Democrats used to call "fat cats."
Democrats have been co-opted by the contemporary class of "Roman Senators:" Nader's epithet: "not a dime's worth of difference" from Republicans almost rings true--except for social policy.
We need a democratic revival not based on either of the current political parties. N.B. My paternal family has been Democrats at least since Franklin Pierce (1853).
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Fascism or the Radical Left?
Two Stratfor articles, "Geopolitical Journey: An Empty Highway in Spain," and "Europe: Unemployment and Instability," suggest that there is an underlying problem of social distance and lack of empathy that leads political elites, and the German public, to continue to insist on austerity, because they don't feel the effects the recession is having on others. Germans, for example, can get judgmental about the shiftless southern Europeans, and insist that only they know what's good for everyone: more austerity.
The US faces a similar problem, because of the widening disparity of wealth. The call for austerity among Republicans expresses the preferences of the very wealthy, who want lower taxes and see no utility in "coddling" what Romney labeled the dependent 47%. So, unemployment is not perceived as a problem, either in Germany (as yet), nor among Wall Street bankers, or their socioeconomic cousins, the very wealthy. That's why almost all the debate in Washington centers on austerity: how to accomplish the Sequester more rationally, how to cut more from social programs like SNAP (food-stamps), so that debt and deficits can be reduced. This debate continues, even though there is stubbornly high unemployment, and especially high long-term employment. "Conservatives" see no reason to stimulate job growth, since the stock market is surging, profits are high, and housing prices are rising.
In Europe, the result very well could be radical politics--or worse. Not only has Italy given 25% of its votes to a new untried political party, The Five Star Movement, led by a comedian, but Hungary's right-wing government has passed a law banning all political opposition!
Unemployment rates of 27% (Greece and Spain), or even around 15% (Lithuania, Portugal, Ireland) begins to look really scary, especially when you have youth unemployment at or more than double those rates. As the Stratfor articles mention, this was the climate that created Fascism and Nazism after WWI. The response this time could be as radical, and of either the right or the left (Greek extremist parties are at both ends of the political spectrum).
The apparent quiescence in Spain and other European nations in recession could easily explode, given the seeming hopelessness faced by the unemployed, especially the youth. If I were in their shoes, I'd be tinder for anyone who started yelling that he/she could solve it.
Meanwhile, austerity and the Sequester are destroying the future of both regions.
What this may mean is that the economic/political system in which we exist could undergo radical transformation sometime soon, and it might not be pretty. However, our elites (European, American, Chinese) don't seem to have a clue, which makes all our political systems that much more vulnerable to upheaval.
If there is no transformation, we could go the way of the Late Roman Empire: monopolized wealth by today's equivalent of Roman Senators, and immiseration for everyone else.
The US faces a similar problem, because of the widening disparity of wealth. The call for austerity among Republicans expresses the preferences of the very wealthy, who want lower taxes and see no utility in "coddling" what Romney labeled the dependent 47%. So, unemployment is not perceived as a problem, either in Germany (as yet), nor among Wall Street bankers, or their socioeconomic cousins, the very wealthy. That's why almost all the debate in Washington centers on austerity: how to accomplish the Sequester more rationally, how to cut more from social programs like SNAP (food-stamps), so that debt and deficits can be reduced. This debate continues, even though there is stubbornly high unemployment, and especially high long-term employment. "Conservatives" see no reason to stimulate job growth, since the stock market is surging, profits are high, and housing prices are rising.
In Europe, the result very well could be radical politics--or worse. Not only has Italy given 25% of its votes to a new untried political party, The Five Star Movement, led by a comedian, but Hungary's right-wing government has passed a law banning all political opposition!
Unemployment rates of 27% (Greece and Spain), or even around 15% (Lithuania, Portugal, Ireland) begins to look really scary, especially when you have youth unemployment at or more than double those rates. As the Stratfor articles mention, this was the climate that created Fascism and Nazism after WWI. The response this time could be as radical, and of either the right or the left (Greek extremist parties are at both ends of the political spectrum).
The apparent quiescence in Spain and other European nations in recession could easily explode, given the seeming hopelessness faced by the unemployed, especially the youth. If I were in their shoes, I'd be tinder for anyone who started yelling that he/she could solve it.
Meanwhile, austerity and the Sequester are destroying the future of both regions.
What this may mean is that the economic/political system in which we exist could undergo radical transformation sometime soon, and it might not be pretty. However, our elites (European, American, Chinese) don't seem to have a clue, which makes all our political systems that much more vulnerable to upheaval.
If there is no transformation, we could go the way of the Late Roman Empire: monopolized wealth by today's equivalent of Roman Senators, and immiseration for everyone else.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Snake Oil Salesmen
The Chamber of Commerce's lead article (05/16/13) states: "The Keystone XL Pipeline is a viable remedy for many of the threats and concerns that plague small business owners."
The Chamber (and others) spread misinformation that XL will unleash lower energy prices, and create jobs. Temporarily, it might create a few jobs, but TransCanada has been transparent about its intention to sell its hydrocarbon sludge abroad. The petroleum market is world-wide and fungible, anyway; oil is basically sold at the same price, subject to world-wide demand and supply--and speculation. Canadian sludge won't drive prices down, nor even keep them from rising, if China, India and other emerging economies continue to hunger for more--as they will.
The Chamber of Commerce, pretending to represent small business, claims the XL pipeline is needed for small businesses, to promote jobs and lower energy costs. There's no mention that it's one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet, and that its addition to the fuel mix will increase global warming and climate change significantly. Nor does the Chamber mention the recent disastrous spills of this toxic mess in Nebraska and Michigan. The author of the Chamber's lead article promoting this: Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.), is Chairman, Small Business Subcommittee on Agriculture, Energy and Trade.
He sells snake oil.It's the line Republican Congressmen, from gerrymandered districts, follow, as well.
You mustn't regulate emissions, but you must protect "job creator" subsidies for Exxon, etc. and you can't let government functions out-compete "free enterprise," like the Postal Service, or Social Security. That's really why both, plus Medicare/Medicaid, have been targeted by the GOP: Yet costs are lower, and public benefits are obvious, while corporations (or their shareholders) don't profit.
From the Chamber of Commerce rightward, there appears to be an alternate reality, and almost half of Americans have been persuaded it's real: government can't do anything good. They've been persuaded that government stimulus even during recession, will trigger galloping inflation, though inflation isn't as high as the Fed has targeted; the minimal stimulus drove us (barely) out of recession, unlike the austerity-driven EU, and the dollar has gained value against other currencies. The right-wing solution for this non-problem, is to cut government expenditures, laying off teachers and police, civil service workers and firemen, cutting government services and aid to those in need: the grand sequester.
Given austerity's dismal failure to resolve Europe's financial problems, why can't we learn from their mistakes (let alone those of FDR in 1937)? Because corporations could profit more from austerity?
The right-wing's alternative universe is wreaking a terrible toll. The only example of more damaging policies would be the Roman Senators, who ran the Fifth Century Roman Empire: they ran it into the ground.
The Chamber (and others) spread misinformation that XL will unleash lower energy prices, and create jobs. Temporarily, it might create a few jobs, but TransCanada has been transparent about its intention to sell its hydrocarbon sludge abroad. The petroleum market is world-wide and fungible, anyway; oil is basically sold at the same price, subject to world-wide demand and supply--and speculation. Canadian sludge won't drive prices down, nor even keep them from rising, if China, India and other emerging economies continue to hunger for more--as they will.
The Chamber of Commerce, pretending to represent small business, claims the XL pipeline is needed for small businesses, to promote jobs and lower energy costs. There's no mention that it's one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet, and that its addition to the fuel mix will increase global warming and climate change significantly. Nor does the Chamber mention the recent disastrous spills of this toxic mess in Nebraska and Michigan. The author of the Chamber's lead article promoting this: Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.), is Chairman, Small Business Subcommittee on Agriculture, Energy and Trade.
He sells snake oil.It's the line Republican Congressmen, from gerrymandered districts, follow, as well.
You mustn't regulate emissions, but you must protect "job creator" subsidies for Exxon, etc. and you can't let government functions out-compete "free enterprise," like the Postal Service, or Social Security. That's really why both, plus Medicare/Medicaid, have been targeted by the GOP: Yet costs are lower, and public benefits are obvious, while corporations (or their shareholders) don't profit.
From the Chamber of Commerce rightward, there appears to be an alternate reality, and almost half of Americans have been persuaded it's real: government can't do anything good. They've been persuaded that government stimulus even during recession, will trigger galloping inflation, though inflation isn't as high as the Fed has targeted; the minimal stimulus drove us (barely) out of recession, unlike the austerity-driven EU, and the dollar has gained value against other currencies. The right-wing solution for this non-problem, is to cut government expenditures, laying off teachers and police, civil service workers and firemen, cutting government services and aid to those in need: the grand sequester.
Given austerity's dismal failure to resolve Europe's financial problems, why can't we learn from their mistakes (let alone those of FDR in 1937)? Because corporations could profit more from austerity?
The right-wing's alternative universe is wreaking a terrible toll. The only example of more damaging policies would be the Roman Senators, who ran the Fifth Century Roman Empire: they ran it into the ground.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Feudalism Corporate-style
The US is leaving Afghanistan (too slowly), but just think of the profits big corporations can make on its most important export.
Really, there must be some way Pfizer, Novartis, etc, can profit on Afghan opium (Afghanistan produces 90% of the world's crop). Big corporations increasingly dominate world trade. They're pressing globally for patent rights even to basic food crops. Patents as monopoly grants, provide corporations monopoly profits.
Corporations promote war, any war: they can make obscene amounts on it. They have a near monopsony, as well: the US Defense Department; it buys more from defense corporations than all other buyers combined, close to a definition of the word, monopsony.
The US strides, giant-like, across the world--trampling, too. But it, and almost every other nation, is bowing to a multiplicity of fiefdoms called corporations.
When the Roman Empire was self-destructing in the late 300's to late 400's, it was ruled by a class that created the model for what came after: Roman Senators lorded it over huge latifundias, with estates from Gaul to North Africa, all manned by hundreds to thousands of serfs and slaves. Senators also provided the bureaucratic skills to run the Empire, usually to their personal advantage. Over time, the Senators' holdings grew as there became fewer of them (small families), but then shrank as the Empire withered: losing estates in North Africa, for example, when the Vandals took over there--due to incompetence and rivalry between Imperial services.
But what prevailed became the feudalism of the Medieval period, dominated by Germanic conquerors--rampaging hordes that settled down to enjoy their pillage in one place.
Something similar is happening today. Corporations are the new Senatorial latifundias, spreading their thirst for profits worldwide, but in their own niches. We have feudalism of food production by Monsanto, or of pharmaceuticals by Glaxo-Smith-Kline, or of oil and coal production by the Koch brothers.
Workers are treated increasingly as serfs, as unions are driven out, workers are laid off, wages are cut and the remaining employees work harder in fear for their jobs.
Now, with the secret negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the ascendancy of these corporations lurches forward. Only "stakeholders" (not the public or Congress) are permitted to know what the negotiations entail, but leaked accounts indicate that corporations will be able to sue to block environmental and labor laws, expand patent and copyright rights, and generally override sovereign nations' regulations, as long as they can claim their profitability/interest is threatened.
Corporate feudalism is like the Roman Senators, who held life and death power over their 'dependents.' But once the nation-state is pushed aside, will there just be rampaging corporations? No governments will be able to protect the people from the corporate hordes.
Really, there must be some way Pfizer, Novartis, etc, can profit on Afghan opium (Afghanistan produces 90% of the world's crop). Big corporations increasingly dominate world trade. They're pressing globally for patent rights even to basic food crops. Patents as monopoly grants, provide corporations monopoly profits.
Corporations promote war, any war: they can make obscene amounts on it. They have a near monopsony, as well: the US Defense Department; it buys more from defense corporations than all other buyers combined, close to a definition of the word, monopsony.
The US strides, giant-like, across the world--trampling, too. But it, and almost every other nation, is bowing to a multiplicity of fiefdoms called corporations.
When the Roman Empire was self-destructing in the late 300's to late 400's, it was ruled by a class that created the model for what came after: Roman Senators lorded it over huge latifundias, with estates from Gaul to North Africa, all manned by hundreds to thousands of serfs and slaves. Senators also provided the bureaucratic skills to run the Empire, usually to their personal advantage. Over time, the Senators' holdings grew as there became fewer of them (small families), but then shrank as the Empire withered: losing estates in North Africa, for example, when the Vandals took over there--due to incompetence and rivalry between Imperial services.
But what prevailed became the feudalism of the Medieval period, dominated by Germanic conquerors--rampaging hordes that settled down to enjoy their pillage in one place.
Something similar is happening today. Corporations are the new Senatorial latifundias, spreading their thirst for profits worldwide, but in their own niches. We have feudalism of food production by Monsanto, or of pharmaceuticals by Glaxo-Smith-Kline, or of oil and coal production by the Koch brothers.
Workers are treated increasingly as serfs, as unions are driven out, workers are laid off, wages are cut and the remaining employees work harder in fear for their jobs.
Now, with the secret negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the ascendancy of these corporations lurches forward. Only "stakeholders" (not the public or Congress) are permitted to know what the negotiations entail, but leaked accounts indicate that corporations will be able to sue to block environmental and labor laws, expand patent and copyright rights, and generally override sovereign nations' regulations, as long as they can claim their profitability/interest is threatened.
Corporate feudalism is like the Roman Senators, who held life and death power over their 'dependents.' But once the nation-state is pushed aside, will there just be rampaging corporations? No governments will be able to protect the people from the corporate hordes.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
A Discarded World
Sunday at sunrise I saw a car parked in our parking lot along the dirt road, not far from houses and an equestrian center. A guy got out, did something with his leg, and then, as I approached, he got back in the car and drove off. There was someone in the passenger seat.
The driver had discarded something and its foil wrapper. He was probably proud of himself: it was an oversized used condom. On his way to church?
That pretty much epitomizes relations with our social, natural and international world. We trash the natural world, we trash each other; we also trash other nations: cancer has skyrocketed in Iraq because our depleted DU munitions litter the landscape. Our military is proud of them; they're more effective than lead or steel in penetrating tank armor. Who cares about the Iraqis?
Margaret Thatcher was known for popularizing a politics epitomized by: "Screw you, Jack! I've got mine." Our "conservatives" are less eloquent.
Sequestration was meant to force Democrats and Republicans to agree to something sensible, but the first adjustment insures that flights aren't delayed, so Congressmen and Senators can get home during their break. Meanwhile, cuts to Head Start, schools, health research, medical care, extended unemployment insurance and to so many other government programs cause far more damaging consequences: lives lost, children untaught, research not done, people driven homeless: long-term costs to everyone--except the wealthy.
And for what? Both the Alesina/Ardagna article on "expansionary austerity," and the Reinhart/Rogoff article positing the economic danger of a 90+% budget deficit--Economists' arguments promoting austerity--have been proven false, while real experiments with it in Greece, Spain, Ireland, the UK and Portugal have demonstrated its destructive effects.
I sent two of Krugman's anti-austerity articles to a fundamentalist friend; he refused to read them: said they were "all false," and "ideologies will never replace the wisdom and power of the Word of God." Facts didn't matter. To him, and apparently to a large contingent of Republicans in Congress, "debt is debt," an evil--except for Defense, or corporations, or mortgages, or….
My friend made money in California real estate, The austerian agenda makes sense to him: why should he pay for losers, driven homeless, and/or jobless by the burst housing bubble; he made money, so what's wrong with them?
People like him, and those much wealthier drive the political agenda. We don't live in a democracy; the powerful listen to the one-percent, not to the rest of us--except, maybe, the 5%. Our contemporary Roman Senatorial class has conquered. High unemployment benefits them: it makes workers compliant; bosses can cut wages and raise their own salaries: life is good.
It will last until either revolution or collapse, the latter from the instability inherent in extreme inequality; it contributed to Rome's fall in 476.
The driver had discarded something and its foil wrapper. He was probably proud of himself: it was an oversized used condom. On his way to church?
That pretty much epitomizes relations with our social, natural and international world. We trash the natural world, we trash each other; we also trash other nations: cancer has skyrocketed in Iraq because our depleted DU munitions litter the landscape. Our military is proud of them; they're more effective than lead or steel in penetrating tank armor. Who cares about the Iraqis?
Margaret Thatcher was known for popularizing a politics epitomized by: "Screw you, Jack! I've got mine." Our "conservatives" are less eloquent.
Sequestration was meant to force Democrats and Republicans to agree to something sensible, but the first adjustment insures that flights aren't delayed, so Congressmen and Senators can get home during their break. Meanwhile, cuts to Head Start, schools, health research, medical care, extended unemployment insurance and to so many other government programs cause far more damaging consequences: lives lost, children untaught, research not done, people driven homeless: long-term costs to everyone--except the wealthy.
And for what? Both the Alesina/Ardagna article on "expansionary austerity," and the Reinhart/Rogoff article positing the economic danger of a 90+% budget deficit--Economists' arguments promoting austerity--have been proven false, while real experiments with it in Greece, Spain, Ireland, the UK and Portugal have demonstrated its destructive effects.
I sent two of Krugman's anti-austerity articles to a fundamentalist friend; he refused to read them: said they were "all false," and "ideologies will never replace the wisdom and power of the Word of God." Facts didn't matter. To him, and apparently to a large contingent of Republicans in Congress, "debt is debt," an evil--except for Defense, or corporations, or mortgages, or….
My friend made money in California real estate, The austerian agenda makes sense to him: why should he pay for losers, driven homeless, and/or jobless by the burst housing bubble; he made money, so what's wrong with them?
People like him, and those much wealthier drive the political agenda. We don't live in a democracy; the powerful listen to the one-percent, not to the rest of us--except, maybe, the 5%. Our contemporary Roman Senatorial class has conquered. High unemployment benefits them: it makes workers compliant; bosses can cut wages and raise their own salaries: life is good.
It will last until either revolution or collapse, the latter from the instability inherent in extreme inequality; it contributed to Rome's fall in 476.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Extreme Wealth Corrodes Democracy
The United States was, for a short time, a democracy, if only of white male property owners--much like early Athens. Counterrevolution began with the Constitutional Convention.
Democratic forces were predominant in other eras in the US, but they didn't last. There was the Democracy of Andrew Jackson and brash new western men. There was the early radical Republicanism of the Civil War. There was the Progressive era: the overweening power of the trusts was busted, at least temporarily. There was the New Deal, extending through the Great Society, in which government made it its business to extend equality and its benefits.
But each democratic era has been followed by a period of reaction and hardening elite rule. However, up until now, America has always had an upwardly mobile society: the son of the worker, farmer, or clerk becoming the new rich. And always before, the elite made way for them, even if they hated "upstarts" and "new money."
Today, class mobility in America is lower than in class-bound Britain; American society is becoming rigid and stratified--though no one will admit they are anything but "middle class." The difference between the new financial wealthy and everyone else has never been greater; CEO's are paid 100's or 1000+ times more than their workers, a greater margin of difference than other developed nations. Inequality increased even more rapidly after the so-called Great Recession and subsequent "recovery" under Obama's leadership. More than 90% of the gains since 2009 have gone into the pockets of the extremely wealthy, while unemployment hovers around an official 7.8% and is nearly twice that when counting workers who have given up looking for work.
The intransigence of conservative Republicans is not surprising, nor the timidity of Democrats: they both reflect the changing balance of power in the US. Unions have declined to single digits of the private sector workforce, and Republicans have sharpened their knives to eliminate the power of public sector unions, as well.
Meanwhile, state legislatures and Congress promote austerity, and cut programs benefiting the less affluent, while attempting to lower taxes and eliminate regulations that irritate the resurgent wealthy.
Why not? Politicians easily accumulate wealth from their connections. Anyone in government, even idealistic Obama staff, can legally line his/her nest by cooperating with the moneyed, our Roman Senators. None live in ghettos, or working-class neighborhoods. None see or hear the people who are hurt by the wealthy bias in media and politics.
And the media, largely owned by our Roman Senators, naturally reflects their bias; so even the poor tend to accept the agenda of the wealthy, insisting that austerity is necessary and even Social Security benefits must be cut.
This isn't just the swing of the pendulum; this smells like "takeover" by the very wealthy, like the Roman Senators' monopoly of power in Fifth Century Rome--before its fall.
Democratic forces were predominant in other eras in the US, but they didn't last. There was the Democracy of Andrew Jackson and brash new western men. There was the early radical Republicanism of the Civil War. There was the Progressive era: the overweening power of the trusts was busted, at least temporarily. There was the New Deal, extending through the Great Society, in which government made it its business to extend equality and its benefits.
But each democratic era has been followed by a period of reaction and hardening elite rule. However, up until now, America has always had an upwardly mobile society: the son of the worker, farmer, or clerk becoming the new rich. And always before, the elite made way for them, even if they hated "upstarts" and "new money."
Today, class mobility in America is lower than in class-bound Britain; American society is becoming rigid and stratified--though no one will admit they are anything but "middle class." The difference between the new financial wealthy and everyone else has never been greater; CEO's are paid 100's or 1000+ times more than their workers, a greater margin of difference than other developed nations. Inequality increased even more rapidly after the so-called Great Recession and subsequent "recovery" under Obama's leadership. More than 90% of the gains since 2009 have gone into the pockets of the extremely wealthy, while unemployment hovers around an official 7.8% and is nearly twice that when counting workers who have given up looking for work.
The intransigence of conservative Republicans is not surprising, nor the timidity of Democrats: they both reflect the changing balance of power in the US. Unions have declined to single digits of the private sector workforce, and Republicans have sharpened their knives to eliminate the power of public sector unions, as well.
Meanwhile, state legislatures and Congress promote austerity, and cut programs benefiting the less affluent, while attempting to lower taxes and eliminate regulations that irritate the resurgent wealthy.
Why not? Politicians easily accumulate wealth from their connections. Anyone in government, even idealistic Obama staff, can legally line his/her nest by cooperating with the moneyed, our Roman Senators. None live in ghettos, or working-class neighborhoods. None see or hear the people who are hurt by the wealthy bias in media and politics.
And the media, largely owned by our Roman Senators, naturally reflects their bias; so even the poor tend to accept the agenda of the wealthy, insisting that austerity is necessary and even Social Security benefits must be cut.
This isn't just the swing of the pendulum; this smells like "takeover" by the very wealthy, like the Roman Senators' monopoly of power in Fifth Century Rome--before its fall.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Bad Ideas
George McGovern endorsed a terrible book, The Promise of the Coming Dark Age: it saw the Cambodian Khmer Rouge as the great promise: our communitarian future, in which capitalism would be transmuted into abundance for all.
From 1975-1979, the Khmer Rouge murdered a larger share of their people than the Nazis or Stalin: virtually any non-Maoist with education, or anyone from the middle class and any city-dweller. Later, anyone not ideologically "reliable" was eliminated, as well. The total murdered were between 1.7 and 2.3 million out of a population of only 7 million: between a fourth and a third of all Cambodians.
The idea that attracted McGovern was the Khmer Rouge's advocacy for a communitarian (Communist) agrarian society that was supposed to be fully self-sustaining, and purged of all western influence or technology. McGovern, et al ignored the violence, the authoritarianism, the ideological rigidity and the KR's flight from reality.
Finally, Vietnam ousted the KR in 1979, but Cambodia has suffered famines and near social collapse ever since, unable to overcome the KR's nearly successful attempt to destroy urban Cambodia and western education.
The KR glorified their agrarian past, just as the GOP glorifies a Norman Rockwell view of "real America." Ayn Rand, their ideological guru, glorified the unrestrained entrepreneur stifled by big government. As politicians attempt to put her vision into practice, it might not be so bloody as the KR, but many more will be impoverished. Randism inspires Republican enthusiasm for the sequester, in which the poor and middle class lose the services they depend on, while a small elite benefit from the cuts through privatization and lower taxes.
Ever since Reagan broke the Air Traffic Controllers' strike, the corporate wealthy have successfully carried Republicans and many Democrats with them. Since 1980, income and wealth have concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Disasters, like Katrina in New Orleans, and Sandy in New York, and the nationwide implosion of the financial sector in 2008, have accelerated the process. Wall Street was bailed out, but the country as a whole is still only slowly recovering. The vast majority of productivity gains and new wealth created since the implosion has ended up in the pockets of the wealthy; the banks that precipitated the crisis have gotten bigger and wealthier, yet last month only 88,000 private sector jobs were created. The nation needs at least 150,000 per month to recover.
The wealthy want the Government to cut back, not because there is a real, immediate debt crisis, but because continuing high unemployment serves them: it keeps wages low, workers compliant.
Unless there is some revolutionary upheaval, some Hugo Chavez, the takeover of the wealthy corporate class will continue, much like the monopolization of wealth and power in the hands of the Roman Senatorial class in the late 4th and early 5th century. It won't end well.
From 1975-1979, the Khmer Rouge murdered a larger share of their people than the Nazis or Stalin: virtually any non-Maoist with education, or anyone from the middle class and any city-dweller. Later, anyone not ideologically "reliable" was eliminated, as well. The total murdered were between 1.7 and 2.3 million out of a population of only 7 million: between a fourth and a third of all Cambodians.
The idea that attracted McGovern was the Khmer Rouge's advocacy for a communitarian (Communist) agrarian society that was supposed to be fully self-sustaining, and purged of all western influence or technology. McGovern, et al ignored the violence, the authoritarianism, the ideological rigidity and the KR's flight from reality.
Finally, Vietnam ousted the KR in 1979, but Cambodia has suffered famines and near social collapse ever since, unable to overcome the KR's nearly successful attempt to destroy urban Cambodia and western education.
The KR glorified their agrarian past, just as the GOP glorifies a Norman Rockwell view of "real America." Ayn Rand, their ideological guru, glorified the unrestrained entrepreneur stifled by big government. As politicians attempt to put her vision into practice, it might not be so bloody as the KR, but many more will be impoverished. Randism inspires Republican enthusiasm for the sequester, in which the poor and middle class lose the services they depend on, while a small elite benefit from the cuts through privatization and lower taxes.
Ever since Reagan broke the Air Traffic Controllers' strike, the corporate wealthy have successfully carried Republicans and many Democrats with them. Since 1980, income and wealth have concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Disasters, like Katrina in New Orleans, and Sandy in New York, and the nationwide implosion of the financial sector in 2008, have accelerated the process. Wall Street was bailed out, but the country as a whole is still only slowly recovering. The vast majority of productivity gains and new wealth created since the implosion has ended up in the pockets of the wealthy; the banks that precipitated the crisis have gotten bigger and wealthier, yet last month only 88,000 private sector jobs were created. The nation needs at least 150,000 per month to recover.
The wealthy want the Government to cut back, not because there is a real, immediate debt crisis, but because continuing high unemployment serves them: it keeps wages low, workers compliant.
Unless there is some revolutionary upheaval, some Hugo Chavez, the takeover of the wealthy corporate class will continue, much like the monopolization of wealth and power in the hands of the Roman Senatorial class in the late 4th and early 5th century. It won't end well.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Next Question:
Why are the Democrats so timid, especially in the face of unapologetic Republican extremism? And this goes for Obama, too. He keeps talking about the "grand bargain" that he wants to negotiate, by compromising with the same Republicans who want to eviscerate any program or service that aids the poor or "middle class," want to repeal Obamacare and are determined to make Obama's presidency a failure, even if he was reelected.
Nader pointed out the obvious, when he identified the "defeatist" Democrats, who took no advantage in 2012 of the incredibly unpopular policies and votes of the Republican Congress, like cutting programs for the poor, while cutting taxes on the rich.
As I pointed out last week, the deficit/debt/austerity politics that roils inside the Beltway is also highly unpopular, except with one demographic: the wealthy. But Democrats, who call themselves The People's Party, are too scared to take a popular stand because they are almost as dependent on wealthy donors as Republicans.
In other words, we live in an extremely corrupt political system: politicians may not get direct payoffs, but they do get wealthy from currying rich people's favor. They don’t organize politics like old Boss Tweed, or Mayor Daley Senior, but they are even more corrupt: their whole agenda, such as it is, justifies and rewards the extremely wealthy--and this is not just the extremist GOP, but the "mainstream" GOP, and some Democrats, as well. Democracy does not come trippingly off the tongue.
However, the Congressional Progressive Caucus offers a no-nonsense alternative to GOP Paul Ryan's vague, reactionary budget and cancels the sequester. Progressives claim their budget, entitled Going to Work, would reduce the deficit in three years by producing 7 million jobs and increasing GDP by 5.7%.
Supporters claim that investing in jobs, in infrastructure, which civil engineers recently pinpointed for much needed repair, in teachers and cops--in people--would reduce the deficit. The budget also raises revenue by closing tax loopholes on higher incomes and raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires, including taxing investment income the same as wages; it's now at preferential low rates. Proponents claim the expansionary budget would cut the deficit by $4.4 trillion. Some of the loopholes to be cut, aside from investment income: $112 billion fossil fuels industry subsidy; $70 billion: food and entertainment corporate deductions; $13 billion: yachts and vacation homes deductions and $25 billion: eliminating a stock options loophole.
The Democratic Senate's budget is timorous by comparison, although at least it protects Medicare and Social Security from cuts. But why can't mainstream Democrats advocate for an expansionary budget to grow revenue? The Fed's Bernanke says we shouldn't cut spending until growth stabilizes; even Republicans admit the "fiscal crisis" is only a future problem.
Because our Roman Senators, the extremely wealthy, control the political debate and promote their interests: lower taxes for them; no protection from their rapacity and reduced/no services for everyone else. They want a society like Fifth Century Rome.
Nader pointed out the obvious, when he identified the "defeatist" Democrats, who took no advantage in 2012 of the incredibly unpopular policies and votes of the Republican Congress, like cutting programs for the poor, while cutting taxes on the rich.
As I pointed out last week, the deficit/debt/austerity politics that roils inside the Beltway is also highly unpopular, except with one demographic: the wealthy. But Democrats, who call themselves The People's Party, are too scared to take a popular stand because they are almost as dependent on wealthy donors as Republicans.
In other words, we live in an extremely corrupt political system: politicians may not get direct payoffs, but they do get wealthy from currying rich people's favor. They don’t organize politics like old Boss Tweed, or Mayor Daley Senior, but they are even more corrupt: their whole agenda, such as it is, justifies and rewards the extremely wealthy--and this is not just the extremist GOP, but the "mainstream" GOP, and some Democrats, as well. Democracy does not come trippingly off the tongue.
However, the Congressional Progressive Caucus offers a no-nonsense alternative to GOP Paul Ryan's vague, reactionary budget and cancels the sequester. Progressives claim their budget, entitled Going to Work, would reduce the deficit in three years by producing 7 million jobs and increasing GDP by 5.7%.
Supporters claim that investing in jobs, in infrastructure, which civil engineers recently pinpointed for much needed repair, in teachers and cops--in people--would reduce the deficit. The budget also raises revenue by closing tax loopholes on higher incomes and raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires, including taxing investment income the same as wages; it's now at preferential low rates. Proponents claim the expansionary budget would cut the deficit by $4.4 trillion. Some of the loopholes to be cut, aside from investment income: $112 billion fossil fuels industry subsidy; $70 billion: food and entertainment corporate deductions; $13 billion: yachts and vacation homes deductions and $25 billion: eliminating a stock options loophole.
The Democratic Senate's budget is timorous by comparison, although at least it protects Medicare and Social Security from cuts. But why can't mainstream Democrats advocate for an expansionary budget to grow revenue? The Fed's Bernanke says we shouldn't cut spending until growth stabilizes; even Republicans admit the "fiscal crisis" is only a future problem.
Because our Roman Senators, the extremely wealthy, control the political debate and promote their interests: lower taxes for them; no protection from their rapacity and reduced/no services for everyone else. They want a society like Fifth Century Rome.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Democracy?
Does the United States have a functioning democracy? All the platitudes about democracy, thundered from every quarter, would make you believe so. But if you look even at the surface of our political "debate," and of the policies that issue from it, and then look at public opinion, as expressed in polls, the US doesn't look democratic.
It looks about as democratic as Marie Antoinette, or Diocletian (see http://www.roman-empire-america-now.com/history-of-the-roman-empire.html).
What are the main concerns of the public at large? Jobs, higher wages, more equity, health care, assurance that the older generation is taken care of, better schools, safety. The debt and deficits are hardly even a concern.
The debate in Washington, and in state capitols, is how to cut the debt and the deficits, and the way to do so is to cut the very services the public wants more of. The alternative offered: raise taxes on the wealthy, is still to cut deficits.
Paul Krugman, the Nobel economist, continually points out that the deficits are not a problem to be solved now, when the economy is only barely emerging from The Great Recession. And he says it's not the terrible problem those he calls "Very Serious People" constantly rail about. Government expenditures and deficits, relative to the huge size of the economy, are actually going down, and were never too large. He also points out that the deficits run by the Bush-Cheney administration were mostly wasted, while the current deficits are largely due to the extremely slow recovery and the inadequate attempts by the Obama administration to stimulate the economy: it would have been better if such deficits had been larger.
Yet, the VSP continue to insist: we must cut government expenditures now, because we have to "solve the debt crisis." And our media, and Congress, and even the President go along. Obama talks about reaching a "grand bargain," which apparently would cut benefits to Medicare, Social Security, Medicare, and a whole raft of other social programs like Head Start, in return for even a few concessions on cutting tax loopholes for the wealthy.
Popular opinion supports higher taxes on the wealthy. People know, without looking at statistical tables, that the wealthy have radically increased their share of the wealth, are grabbing even more and are taxed less, in relative terms, than the poor, or the middle class.
But higher taxes for the wealthy are a non-starter, while cuts to Medicare and even to Social Security, which doesn't contribute to deficits, are "on the table."
What's going on here?
Polls have shown that the very wealthy want cuts to social services (they don't need them); say large deficits are our worst problem and must be cut, by cutting expenditures for things they don't need--like Medicare and Social Security--but not by raising taxes on them; they need their yachts.
That's who the VSP represent: the equivalent of Rome's Selfish Class, the Roman Senators: that's plutocracy, not democracy.
It looks about as democratic as Marie Antoinette, or Diocletian (see http://www.roman-empire-america-now.com/history-of-the-roman-empire.html).
What are the main concerns of the public at large? Jobs, higher wages, more equity, health care, assurance that the older generation is taken care of, better schools, safety. The debt and deficits are hardly even a concern.
The debate in Washington, and in state capitols, is how to cut the debt and the deficits, and the way to do so is to cut the very services the public wants more of. The alternative offered: raise taxes on the wealthy, is still to cut deficits.
Paul Krugman, the Nobel economist, continually points out that the deficits are not a problem to be solved now, when the economy is only barely emerging from The Great Recession. And he says it's not the terrible problem those he calls "Very Serious People" constantly rail about. Government expenditures and deficits, relative to the huge size of the economy, are actually going down, and were never too large. He also points out that the deficits run by the Bush-Cheney administration were mostly wasted, while the current deficits are largely due to the extremely slow recovery and the inadequate attempts by the Obama administration to stimulate the economy: it would have been better if such deficits had been larger.
Yet, the VSP continue to insist: we must cut government expenditures now, because we have to "solve the debt crisis." And our media, and Congress, and even the President go along. Obama talks about reaching a "grand bargain," which apparently would cut benefits to Medicare, Social Security, Medicare, and a whole raft of other social programs like Head Start, in return for even a few concessions on cutting tax loopholes for the wealthy.
Popular opinion supports higher taxes on the wealthy. People know, without looking at statistical tables, that the wealthy have radically increased their share of the wealth, are grabbing even more and are taxed less, in relative terms, than the poor, or the middle class.
But higher taxes for the wealthy are a non-starter, while cuts to Medicare and even to Social Security, which doesn't contribute to deficits, are "on the table."
What's going on here?
Polls have shown that the very wealthy want cuts to social services (they don't need them); say large deficits are our worst problem and must be cut, by cutting expenditures for things they don't need--like Medicare and Social Security--but not by raising taxes on them; they need their yachts.
That's who the VSP represent: the equivalent of Rome's Selfish Class, the Roman Senators: that's plutocracy, not democracy.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Gold and the Sequester
Paul Krugman, liberal Nobel Economist, points to a huge increase in the corporate share of the economy since President Reagan: from 4-5% to 10% currently, except in the troughs of downturns. In addition, corporations aren't spending this doubled share: they're saving it.
The Roman Senatorial class in the fifth century controlled an even larger share of their economy: their capital was land, slaves, serfs, and gold. They hoarded all of them, but especially gold.
It's argued by conservative economists (non-Keynesians) that corporate hoarding (or saving), doesn’t matter, because it isn't like hoarding gold--the Roman Empire's main currency. Corporations have bank accounts: banks can turn around and lend out corporate deposits; that's their business.
Bank speculation, however, instead of lending, has become the great profit driver for big banks: they don't lend out enough during a recession like ours, because they can make so much more through playing the 'Russian Roulette' Finance game, creating derivatives, and derivatives of derivatives, betting for and against their success (hedging) and selling them to other speculators.
In the case of the Roman Senators, the effect of their hoarding gold and land was to so severely reduce the availability of money in the economy that there was long-term deflation that impoverished almost everyone.
The effect of withdrawing money from Roman society was to reduce the ability of most people to buy anything, and to increase their dependency on those with wealth. That's what precipitated the Dark Ages, AKA feudalism. The other side of this: those hoarding might have been able to buy anything their jaded hearts desired, but since there were few of them, the Empire became progressively poorer. And even marketable goods became less marketable.
The same is true of the effect of corporations hoarding: fewer goods and services are produced or consumed: hoarding intensifies lack of demand that triggers a depression or recession.
Hoarding complements austerity, the cause radical Republicans now proclaim in order to reduce dependency on government. But if people were dependent on government programs to survive or prosper, then, without them, they would be even more vulnerable to exploitation by people and corporations with money. This gets us back to the Sequester, which takes place today, cutting $85 billion in programs "across-the-board" from Defense, the big untouchable, to Head Start and Air Traffic controllers.
The radicals don't seem to care if unemployment worsens, because of the cuts they demand. If you don't have a job, you're a loser; why should we take care of you?
But look on the bright side: the cuts slash bloated Defense the most, so maybe the Sequester isn't all bad. It might force newly appointed Defense Secretary Hagel to really cut the Defense budget. He's the one who called Defense 'bloated' after all.
On the other hand, Tea-Partiers love the domestic cuts: they only hurt "takers," they're told: so far, they hear no other voices.
So, expect a down-turn by Spring.
The Roman Senatorial class in the fifth century controlled an even larger share of their economy: their capital was land, slaves, serfs, and gold. They hoarded all of them, but especially gold.
It's argued by conservative economists (non-Keynesians) that corporate hoarding (or saving), doesn’t matter, because it isn't like hoarding gold--the Roman Empire's main currency. Corporations have bank accounts: banks can turn around and lend out corporate deposits; that's their business.
Bank speculation, however, instead of lending, has become the great profit driver for big banks: they don't lend out enough during a recession like ours, because they can make so much more through playing the 'Russian Roulette' Finance game, creating derivatives, and derivatives of derivatives, betting for and against their success (hedging) and selling them to other speculators.
In the case of the Roman Senators, the effect of their hoarding gold and land was to so severely reduce the availability of money in the economy that there was long-term deflation that impoverished almost everyone.
The effect of withdrawing money from Roman society was to reduce the ability of most people to buy anything, and to increase their dependency on those with wealth. That's what precipitated the Dark Ages, AKA feudalism. The other side of this: those hoarding might have been able to buy anything their jaded hearts desired, but since there were few of them, the Empire became progressively poorer. And even marketable goods became less marketable.
The same is true of the effect of corporations hoarding: fewer goods and services are produced or consumed: hoarding intensifies lack of demand that triggers a depression or recession.
Hoarding complements austerity, the cause radical Republicans now proclaim in order to reduce dependency on government. But if people were dependent on government programs to survive or prosper, then, without them, they would be even more vulnerable to exploitation by people and corporations with money. This gets us back to the Sequester, which takes place today, cutting $85 billion in programs "across-the-board" from Defense, the big untouchable, to Head Start and Air Traffic controllers.
The radicals don't seem to care if unemployment worsens, because of the cuts they demand. If you don't have a job, you're a loser; why should we take care of you?
But look on the bright side: the cuts slash bloated Defense the most, so maybe the Sequester isn't all bad. It might force newly appointed Defense Secretary Hagel to really cut the Defense budget. He's the one who called Defense 'bloated' after all.
On the other hand, Tea-Partiers love the domestic cuts: they only hurt "takers," they're told: so far, they hear no other voices.
So, expect a down-turn by Spring.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
The Pope and Vatican Scandal
The Vatican, said my wise wife, is the model for all the (predatory) corporations that are despoiling our world. Her comment was prompted by the current brewing scandal of a possible reason for the Pope resigning so suddenly. According to a report in La Repubblica, a committee of Vatican octogenarian insiders revealed to Benedict XVI a faction within the Vatican “united by sexual orientation” that had been subject to “external influence” of a “worldly nature.” This translates as: a gay faction inside the Vatican, probably being blackmailed. Another Vatican source explained: “Everything revolves around the non-observance of the sixth and seventh commandments,” i.e. adultery and thievery.
What do predatory corporations and the Church, qua institution, have in common? Ironically, it's amorality; the willingness to do almost anything, for power, or for corporations, profit.
When did the Roman Catholic Church first become an institution more powerful than the state? Back at the cusp of the Fifth Century (390), when Bishop Ambrose of Milan excommunicated Emperor Theodosius the Great, who underwent months of penance, before, so goes the story, climbing the cathedral steps on his knees. His surrender entailed outlawing all worship of pagan gods, acknowledging the Church's monopoly on religious power.
By the end of the next generation, the Roman Church, in effect, took over from the failing Roman Empire . The power of non-Catholic Christian Visigoths and Ostrogoths like Odoacer and Theoderic, took longer to overthrow: Franks and other Catholic German tribes, replaced them with the support of the Roman church.
Do not think of the Roman church back then as a religious institution: it was the literate brains for the illiterate brawn of their Germanic allies. Priests, Bishops--and Popes--had mistresses and families. Some probably had boyfriends. They did not practice poverty, either, but since they had no military power, safety depended upon controlling the succeeding kings, in order to protect their wealth in turbulent times.
There was considerable overlap between the Senatorial class and the leadership of the church. Sidonius, one of the best-known Senators, known for his elegant writing style, became a Bishop, later sainted, in what is now Provence. He defended his diocese from the Arian Christian Goths, was imprisoned, but later was freed to (supposedly) hear Mary Magdalen's confession (according to the tablet in his crypt, although the Magdalen lived there 300 years earlier).
It's true that what classical learning and literacy survived, as well as any remnant of science and philosophy, was due to the Church. But the moral flexibility of the church was one of the reasons for the failure of the western empire: it transferred its secular support to insure its spiritual monopoly. It's likely that the Church supported the "fall of Rome," when Senators voted to overthrow the boy Emperor, Romulus Augustulus for the Ostrogothic King Odoacer, ceding him the land he coveted in Italy; they refused to tax themselves to pay him off.
What do predatory corporations and the Church, qua institution, have in common? Ironically, it's amorality; the willingness to do almost anything, for power, or for corporations, profit.
When did the Roman Catholic Church first become an institution more powerful than the state? Back at the cusp of the Fifth Century (390), when Bishop Ambrose of Milan excommunicated Emperor Theodosius the Great, who underwent months of penance, before, so goes the story, climbing the cathedral steps on his knees. His surrender entailed outlawing all worship of pagan gods, acknowledging the Church's monopoly on religious power.
By the end of the next generation, the Roman Church, in effect, took over from the failing Roman Empire . The power of non-Catholic Christian Visigoths and Ostrogoths like Odoacer and Theoderic, took longer to overthrow: Franks and other Catholic German tribes, replaced them with the support of the Roman church.
Do not think of the Roman church back then as a religious institution: it was the literate brains for the illiterate brawn of their Germanic allies. Priests, Bishops--and Popes--had mistresses and families. Some probably had boyfriends. They did not practice poverty, either, but since they had no military power, safety depended upon controlling the succeeding kings, in order to protect their wealth in turbulent times.
There was considerable overlap between the Senatorial class and the leadership of the church. Sidonius, one of the best-known Senators, known for his elegant writing style, became a Bishop, later sainted, in what is now Provence. He defended his diocese from the Arian Christian Goths, was imprisoned, but later was freed to (supposedly) hear Mary Magdalen's confession (according to the tablet in his crypt, although the Magdalen lived there 300 years earlier).
It's true that what classical learning and literacy survived, as well as any remnant of science and philosophy, was due to the Church. But the moral flexibility of the church was one of the reasons for the failure of the western empire: it transferred its secular support to insure its spiritual monopoly. It's likely that the Church supported the "fall of Rome," when Senators voted to overthrow the boy Emperor, Romulus Augustulus for the Ostrogothic King Odoacer, ceding him the land he coveted in Italy; they refused to tax themselves to pay him off.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Sequestration
Is a fancy word: it means, in the memorable phrase of Congressman, Sean Maloney, "Congress screwing up the economy for no reason."
It's true that the projected government deficit is over $1.1 trillion, a mind-boggling number, but cutting spending would make that number worse. Why? As the miniscule retreat in GDP last quarter demonstrated, when we cut government spending, the whole economy is negatively affected. We teeter between recovery and renewed recession. Further, the experience of European countries, demonstrates that austerity does not create prosperity; it created renewed recession in the UK (triple dip) and depression in Greece.
The "sequester" has the Republicans worrying about cuts to Defense, complaining that this will cost jobs (it will), but they're not worrying about, and want to increase cuts to domestic programs. The cuts already mandated would not only cost even more jobs (civilian programs create more jobs per dollar than defense), but they would hurt our most vulnerable, and our future prosperity.
Cuts to domestic programs will: cut 70,000 children from Headstart, deny treatment to 373,000 mentally ill (adults and children) and reduce small business loan guarantees by $540 million. In addition, the $85 billion in cuts on Mar 1, could include, according to Congresswoman Nita Lowey, "furloughs of air traffic controllers, food inspectors, border patrol, reduced investment in safe drinking water and medical research, diminished military readiness and embassy security."
Think about this logically: if you reduce expenditures March 1st by $85 billion, how is that going to help us recover from the Great Recession? It will cut that amount of money (US multiplier estimated at 1.29 to 1.73) from flowing into the economy, cutting jobs, cutting purchases--as well as needed services. It won't "grow" the economy; it will shrink it by at least $109 billion--in one month.
Greece, subjected to radical austerity, has seen tax receipts plummet with government cuts: its ability to pay back debts is reduced, not enhanced by austerity.
Austerity proponents speak as if "business confidence" will be restored by cuts, and prosperity and jobs will magically return. Why? If everyone, except for banksters and one-percenters, have less money, who's going to buy what businesses sell? The wealthy are too few to create enough demand, so there's no reason for businesses to hire more workers, or produce more goods, if austerity means everyone--except the wealthy--will buy less than they did before. So where are more jobs to come from?
The Roman Empire was in a centuries long depression before it collapsed; its gold standard prevented expansion of the money supply; further, when Senators hoarded gold, money contracted, deepening the depression. Today, the Federal Reserve can expand the money supply, as can the Federal government. When demand is lacking, Government should build demand, not cut it. Only during a full recovery, should long-term budget deficits be cut, by tax and health care reform and withdrawal from an empire the US can no longer afford.
It's true that the projected government deficit is over $1.1 trillion, a mind-boggling number, but cutting spending would make that number worse. Why? As the miniscule retreat in GDP last quarter demonstrated, when we cut government spending, the whole economy is negatively affected. We teeter between recovery and renewed recession. Further, the experience of European countries, demonstrates that austerity does not create prosperity; it created renewed recession in the UK (triple dip) and depression in Greece.
The "sequester" has the Republicans worrying about cuts to Defense, complaining that this will cost jobs (it will), but they're not worrying about, and want to increase cuts to domestic programs. The cuts already mandated would not only cost even more jobs (civilian programs create more jobs per dollar than defense), but they would hurt our most vulnerable, and our future prosperity.
Cuts to domestic programs will: cut 70,000 children from Headstart, deny treatment to 373,000 mentally ill (adults and children) and reduce small business loan guarantees by $540 million. In addition, the $85 billion in cuts on Mar 1, could include, according to Congresswoman Nita Lowey, "furloughs of air traffic controllers, food inspectors, border patrol, reduced investment in safe drinking water and medical research, diminished military readiness and embassy security."
Think about this logically: if you reduce expenditures March 1st by $85 billion, how is that going to help us recover from the Great Recession? It will cut that amount of money (US multiplier estimated at 1.29 to 1.73) from flowing into the economy, cutting jobs, cutting purchases--as well as needed services. It won't "grow" the economy; it will shrink it by at least $109 billion--in one month.
Greece, subjected to radical austerity, has seen tax receipts plummet with government cuts: its ability to pay back debts is reduced, not enhanced by austerity.
Austerity proponents speak as if "business confidence" will be restored by cuts, and prosperity and jobs will magically return. Why? If everyone, except for banksters and one-percenters, have less money, who's going to buy what businesses sell? The wealthy are too few to create enough demand, so there's no reason for businesses to hire more workers, or produce more goods, if austerity means everyone--except the wealthy--will buy less than they did before. So where are more jobs to come from?
The Roman Empire was in a centuries long depression before it collapsed; its gold standard prevented expansion of the money supply; further, when Senators hoarded gold, money contracted, deepening the depression. Today, the Federal Reserve can expand the money supply, as can the Federal government. When demand is lacking, Government should build demand, not cut it. Only during a full recovery, should long-term budget deficits be cut, by tax and health care reform and withdrawal from an empire the US can no longer afford.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Evil Deeds
People do evil things, but they argue they do them for reasons they believe are justified, or because they believe, they are doing good, not evil.
How about the NRA? Some gun-owners think they do good, because they defend their right (constitutional or delusional) to hunt coyotes with an AK-47; "it's so much fun!"
But do the NRA lobbyists do good, when they try to protect human rights abusers in other countries, by lobbying to block the Arms Trade Treaty now before Congress? NRA lobbyists call it a "UN gun grab," and try to scare Congressmen, claiming it will enable the UN to confiscate weapons from US citizens. It won't; it's an international treaty to prevent weapons sales to rogue groups and countries, not individuals within nations; it's meant to regulate arms traders between countries, especially the ones selling to terrorists, torturers and tyrants. The NRA just wants to sell guns.
What about the oil companies lobbying to complete the Keystone XL pipeline, or to expand drilling operations, or to prevent regulation of fracking? Do they, or their lobbyists really believe that there is no such thing as global warming, no impact from burning more and more oil and no environmental damage? In the film, Promised Land, the Land Manager acted by Matt Damon, sells farmers on the chance they'll make a financial killing by signing on to his gas company's fracking project. Then he has second thoughts: fracking can do permanent damage to the water supply, as well as causing air pollution. The film confronts the issue of consequences, and whether it's ethical for companies to ignore them in pursuit of profit. Matt's co-worker continues selling gas-drilling leases, saying, "It's only a job."
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes selling off scrap metals with low levels of radioactivity, assuring the public it's safe. Yet, the UN has recently concluded: because background radiation has increased world-wide--from weapons tests, nuclear accidents, etc.--no added level of radiation is safe. Yet, the NRC, and its clients, the nuclear power industry, have a problem: millions of tons of waste cost millions to store, but could earn millions to sell. So, NRC regulators say 'it's safe.'
What these, and other possible examples, demonstrate is an inability of corporate or government decision-makers to distinguish between corporate economic interest (profits) and public wellbeing: the latter concept has become almost antique.
Meanwhile, cancer rates skyrocket, storms increase their destructiveness, guns kill thousands, cheap food kills more through obesity, and the US is only exceptional in all of these ills.
No, it's exceptional also for killing more outside its borders than anyone else. World civilization is murderous, especially from corporate obsession with profit.
Repeal of Citizens United is only a first step. Either corporations are tamed, or they and their owners, like the Late Roman Empire's Senators, will drive world civilization to extinction.
How about the NRA? Some gun-owners think they do good, because they defend their right (constitutional or delusional) to hunt coyotes with an AK-47; "it's so much fun!"
But do the NRA lobbyists do good, when they try to protect human rights abusers in other countries, by lobbying to block the Arms Trade Treaty now before Congress? NRA lobbyists call it a "UN gun grab," and try to scare Congressmen, claiming it will enable the UN to confiscate weapons from US citizens. It won't; it's an international treaty to prevent weapons sales to rogue groups and countries, not individuals within nations; it's meant to regulate arms traders between countries, especially the ones selling to terrorists, torturers and tyrants. The NRA just wants to sell guns.
What about the oil companies lobbying to complete the Keystone XL pipeline, or to expand drilling operations, or to prevent regulation of fracking? Do they, or their lobbyists really believe that there is no such thing as global warming, no impact from burning more and more oil and no environmental damage? In the film, Promised Land, the Land Manager acted by Matt Damon, sells farmers on the chance they'll make a financial killing by signing on to his gas company's fracking project. Then he has second thoughts: fracking can do permanent damage to the water supply, as well as causing air pollution. The film confronts the issue of consequences, and whether it's ethical for companies to ignore them in pursuit of profit. Matt's co-worker continues selling gas-drilling leases, saying, "It's only a job."
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes selling off scrap metals with low levels of radioactivity, assuring the public it's safe. Yet, the UN has recently concluded: because background radiation has increased world-wide--from weapons tests, nuclear accidents, etc.--no added level of radiation is safe. Yet, the NRC, and its clients, the nuclear power industry, have a problem: millions of tons of waste cost millions to store, but could earn millions to sell. So, NRC regulators say 'it's safe.'
What these, and other possible examples, demonstrate is an inability of corporate or government decision-makers to distinguish between corporate economic interest (profits) and public wellbeing: the latter concept has become almost antique.
Meanwhile, cancer rates skyrocket, storms increase their destructiveness, guns kill thousands, cheap food kills more through obesity, and the US is only exceptional in all of these ills.
No, it's exceptional also for killing more outside its borders than anyone else. World civilization is murderous, especially from corporate obsession with profit.
Repeal of Citizens United is only a first step. Either corporations are tamed, or they and their owners, like the Late Roman Empire's Senators, will drive world civilization to extinction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)