>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!
Showing posts with label Wall Street. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wall Street. Show all posts
Monday, February 3, 2014
Sunday, January 13, 2013
What if a Platinum Coin?
What if the Treasury minted the platinum coin people have talked about, with a denomination of $1Trillion?
What would happen?
There would be much whining within the monopoly media that Obama had become a dictator: he's taken away Congress's power of the purse, the debt ceiling.
Obama could also simply declare, according to the 14th Amendment, that the President has to defend the "full faith and credit of the United States," by continuing to borrow whenever necessary, even if the Congress refused to pass an increased debt ceiling. That's a better alternative.
In either case, the Executive does have the power to maintain the currency. A strong case could be made: a President's first responsibility is to defend the nation, whether it derives from foreign military threats, or domestic economic ones. A default on the US dollar is a much greater threat than any of our last half-century's wars.
A default would probably spell the death knell for the greenback as the world's reserve currency. Interest rates could go sky high, stopping all growth; imports would become prohibitively expensive: a recipe for severe stagflation. Global depression could follow.
Yet, our powerful finance industry isn't leaning on the GOP to quash its debt-ceiling extortion. But then, Wall Street would dearly love to achieve some of the GOP's agenda: especially, privatizing Social Security (which doesn't contribute to the deficit), so maybe it won't press Republicans to stop, unless it looks as if Obama won't blink.
That's one reason why either the platinum coin or Presidential declaration, make sense. Either would stop the hostage taking. Then, if both sides still wanted to talk about deficit/debt reduction, they could have a rational discussion of corporate subsidies, of sensible cuts to the war machine, of reforms to health care and Medicare/Medicaid, by cutting costs without reducing benefits or raising eligibility.
Without the above Presidential action, negotiations would remain irrational: under duress on both sides. Just as in the fiscal cliff negotiation, corrupt deals under the table would pollute the actual bargain ("great" or not), in the rush to meet--or almost meet--the deadline. Reasonable solutions, like restructuring payment mechanisms in Medicare, (as is being tried in New York City hospitals), would be impossible to negotiate.
Wall Street, the GOP, and some Wall Street Democrats, wouldn't like either presidential response, because they'd have a harder time extorting their loopholes, gifts and grants. Conservatives would also bemoan the expansion of Presidential power--not that they opposed it under Bush II.
But maybe the US would finally get a government that governed more or less rationally, for The People.
What are the odds, if our Roman Senators don't get what they want, that the President would even try to get what the nation needs? Where is a backbone when backbone is needed? The selfish class has to be stopped. It would be ironic if a mere coin could do that.
What would happen?
There would be much whining within the monopoly media that Obama had become a dictator: he's taken away Congress's power of the purse, the debt ceiling.
Obama could also simply declare, according to the 14th Amendment, that the President has to defend the "full faith and credit of the United States," by continuing to borrow whenever necessary, even if the Congress refused to pass an increased debt ceiling. That's a better alternative.
In either case, the Executive does have the power to maintain the currency. A strong case could be made: a President's first responsibility is to defend the nation, whether it derives from foreign military threats, or domestic economic ones. A default on the US dollar is a much greater threat than any of our last half-century's wars.
A default would probably spell the death knell for the greenback as the world's reserve currency. Interest rates could go sky high, stopping all growth; imports would become prohibitively expensive: a recipe for severe stagflation. Global depression could follow.
Yet, our powerful finance industry isn't leaning on the GOP to quash its debt-ceiling extortion. But then, Wall Street would dearly love to achieve some of the GOP's agenda: especially, privatizing Social Security (which doesn't contribute to the deficit), so maybe it won't press Republicans to stop, unless it looks as if Obama won't blink.
That's one reason why either the platinum coin or Presidential declaration, make sense. Either would stop the hostage taking. Then, if both sides still wanted to talk about deficit/debt reduction, they could have a rational discussion of corporate subsidies, of sensible cuts to the war machine, of reforms to health care and Medicare/Medicaid, by cutting costs without reducing benefits or raising eligibility.
Without the above Presidential action, negotiations would remain irrational: under duress on both sides. Just as in the fiscal cliff negotiation, corrupt deals under the table would pollute the actual bargain ("great" or not), in the rush to meet--or almost meet--the deadline. Reasonable solutions, like restructuring payment mechanisms in Medicare, (as is being tried in New York City hospitals), would be impossible to negotiate.
Wall Street, the GOP, and some Wall Street Democrats, wouldn't like either presidential response, because they'd have a harder time extorting their loopholes, gifts and grants. Conservatives would also bemoan the expansion of Presidential power--not that they opposed it under Bush II.
But maybe the US would finally get a government that governed more or less rationally, for The People.
What are the odds, if our Roman Senators don't get what they want, that the President would even try to get what the nation needs? Where is a backbone when backbone is needed? The selfish class has to be stopped. It would be ironic if a mere coin could do that.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Bribes Literal and Legal
I don't live in a battleground state, but Friday I received three unattributed flyers and another only identified as Republican by the micro-print postal stamp code: all were negative ads. One was against the incumbent Republican State Senator, possibly from the Independence Party; the Republican ad was against the Democratic challenger. The only TV ad I saw (I watch TV rarely) was also unlabeled, in lurid colors, against the Democratic Congressional challenger of the tea-flavored incumbent Congressman.
The Obama campaign has solicited my wife and I at least five times a day. Each. I have given small amounts several times and used Obama's phone tool; my wife has given more. Democratic Senatorial and Congressional candidates from Washington and Montana to New Mexico and Massachusetts have solicited me, plus at least five progressive Democratic organizations, and the DCCC, DGA and DSCC. That's only the political groups!
Occasionally, I've given really small amounts ($3.00) to Democratic groups or candidates, but it finally occurred to me: the whole campaign is an enormous business, a sector subset of Entertainment. I've encouraged them--I and all the other millions giving to both parties. But we don't get the kind of returns from the mega-bucks that billionaires "donate."
Neverthelss, I'm investing in the continued viability of Social Security, Medicare, and a universal right to health insurance: my investment will pay me back in kind if Obama wins. So will the aid programs for people in need, like fully funding Food Stamps and expanding grants to education. None of this makes me money; some save money for everyone. All maintain social stability.
Why does someone like Sheldon Adelson pledge to spend "whatever it takes," more than $100 million, to defeat Obama? What does he get out of it, if Romney wins? Adelson is under investigation and may be charged a felony: bribing Chinese officials with $600,000 to $1million, to set up gambling casinos in Macao, China's "autonomous" ex-Portuguese colony. He's likely violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to build the largest gambling complex in the world. He could go to jail, or, he could have a new President, Romney, name an Attorney General who would find a way to dismiss the charges.
How much is that worth to a billionaire worth $25 billion, a good part of it from Macao?
If Obama wins, this should be a whole new source of revenue. An invigorated DOJ could search for other sources of income: Wall Street bankers, private fund speculators like Bain Capital: people gambling with other people's money for their own gain.
Maybe that's the kind of money politics we really need! Take Crime Out of the Suites--To Pay Our Debts. Expropriate ill-gotten wealth and fund services for people they squeezed it from.
That would make it politically possible to reverse the apparently inexorable rise of our contemporary Roman Senators: the super-rich who increasingly monopolize the wealth we all produce.
The Obama campaign has solicited my wife and I at least five times a day. Each. I have given small amounts several times and used Obama's phone tool; my wife has given more. Democratic Senatorial and Congressional candidates from Washington and Montana to New Mexico and Massachusetts have solicited me, plus at least five progressive Democratic organizations, and the DCCC, DGA and DSCC. That's only the political groups!
Occasionally, I've given really small amounts ($3.00) to Democratic groups or candidates, but it finally occurred to me: the whole campaign is an enormous business, a sector subset of Entertainment. I've encouraged them--I and all the other millions giving to both parties. But we don't get the kind of returns from the mega-bucks that billionaires "donate."
Neverthelss, I'm investing in the continued viability of Social Security, Medicare, and a universal right to health insurance: my investment will pay me back in kind if Obama wins. So will the aid programs for people in need, like fully funding Food Stamps and expanding grants to education. None of this makes me money; some save money for everyone. All maintain social stability.
Why does someone like Sheldon Adelson pledge to spend "whatever it takes," more than $100 million, to defeat Obama? What does he get out of it, if Romney wins? Adelson is under investigation and may be charged a felony: bribing Chinese officials with $600,000 to $1million, to set up gambling casinos in Macao, China's "autonomous" ex-Portuguese colony. He's likely violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to build the largest gambling complex in the world. He could go to jail, or, he could have a new President, Romney, name an Attorney General who would find a way to dismiss the charges.
How much is that worth to a billionaire worth $25 billion, a good part of it from Macao?
If Obama wins, this should be a whole new source of revenue. An invigorated DOJ could search for other sources of income: Wall Street bankers, private fund speculators like Bain Capital: people gambling with other people's money for their own gain.
Maybe that's the kind of money politics we really need! Take Crime Out of the Suites--To Pay Our Debts. Expropriate ill-gotten wealth and fund services for people they squeezed it from.
That would make it politically possible to reverse the apparently inexorable rise of our contemporary Roman Senators: the super-rich who increasingly monopolize the wealth we all produce.
Monday, June 20, 2011
All Temples Fall
The military has all but taken over war policy; it is determined to preserve American dominance, regardless. The cost of empire is now finally becoming plain: Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and much more.
Nations that have never been empires don't spend more than half their discretionary budgets on "Defense." Instead, they spend to make their people better off. Does spending three-quarters of a trillion dollars a year on war-making give Americans better lives? It's spent all over the world by our generals, trying to maintain dominance. Germany learned through bitter defeat, but Germany, today has universal healthcare and lower unemployment than they had before the Great Recession; they aren't spending their substance on foreign wars.
Americans spend $750+ billions on the most deadly killing machine the planet has ever seen: our military. So, they bomb Afghanistan. Are we better off? We help in bombing Libya, while our generals work hard to persuade Afghans and Iraqis that American troops should stay in their countries indefinitely, even if they do bomb the occasional wedding procession, or informal gathering.
Why does Karzai, originally American-sponsored, want Americans to stay? He wants Americans because he can siphon billions off us, for him, for his family, for his cronies, for his allies bought and paid for. Can he really believe that more years of war are better for his people than a settlement? The Taliban has a central demand, which, for nationalists makes sense: any settlement must require that US and NATO forces leave. Our negotiators refuse to discuss withdrawal, but demand the Taliban submit to "the constitution," which was written with American guidance. Why not negotiate when to leave, and what to get in return and negotiate how to work under the present constitution?
American generals don't want to leave Afghanistan: it's a moneymaker, as well as an opportunity for promotion, power and cushy jobs after retirement. The same goes for Iraq, and for any of the 120+ countries in which we have a presence.
Wall Street promotes empire, too, because of the money it can make from war, and so does the media. Until recently, no one cared whether we had to go into hock to maintain "full-spectrum dominance."
At least, the "budget warriors" are beginning to realize: useless wars cost too much. Who is hurt by empire? Anyone affected by all the cuts to programs aiding them, or the taxes they have to pay for useless wars. Few in power stand up to the generals and say "No!"
But the generals are determined: they desperately hold on; they don't care if America can't afford it. They'll bankrupt and impoverish us to get their way.
All temples fall," Elizabeth Cunningham sings. All empires do, too. Elizabeth will sing this song when she promotes her upcoming Red-robed Priestess the last of her Maeve Chronicles, set during Boudicca's rebellion against Rome. But it's happening now with the American Empire.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Man Threatens to Blow Up NY
When Paladino, endorsed by the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin, wins the Republican gubernatorial nomination in liberal New York State, this is definitely a national trend.
What's Carl Paladino for? He'd cut Medicaid by $20 billion, cut taxes by 10%, and state government spending by 20%. To deal with the looming deficits Governor Paterson has been warning against? He also calls for giving the new governor (if it's him) authoritarian powers to carry out his program.
Good luck on that. The State legislature, regardless of party control, will not give up its powers, especially since Paladino will have to run against almost all elected legislators. Not surprisingly, as a multimillionaire businessman, Paladino also calls for slashing regulations on business. Real revolutionary! Let the frackers drill, and ruin our water supply forever!
Paladino's signature slogan is "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" The issue upon which he gained most traction up to the primary was his opposition to the so-called "Ground-zero Mosque." More strident than Lazio, his Republican opponent, he also pointed an accusing finger at Democrat Cuomo's support for the right of Muslims to build there. He'd use eminent domain to seize the site (two long blocks from "ground zero") to prevent Muslim developers from building their community center--in respect for our warriors fighting for our freedom overseas, etc.
He's been caught sending racist jokes and porn to colleagues via email, but his defenders say that it's "political correctness" that has to go. On his website he points out that the last NY governor from Buffalo (Grover Cleveland) became US President: he has "higher" ambitions.
What is it about Carl Paladino that energizes conservative voters? He's willing to say almost anything; he's been running for office for several cycles, but has been unbesmirched by the far-reaching scandals of the NY legislature: he's never held public office. He was opposed by most Republican leaders, and got only 8% of the vote in the party convention, so he's the ultimate outsider. But he brandished striking rhetoric, like promising to “take a baseball bat to Albany,” to break up entrenched politicos. Further, he does have some valid points: New Yorkers pay almost the highest taxes in the nation--especially property taxes--its legislature is dysfunctional and its government is one of the most bureaucratized.
But it's also got Wall Street: neither Paladino, nor Cuomo are willing to talk about taxing its huge profits, nor about taxing multimillionaires like him more fairly.
Paladino is the ultimate Roman Senator: he owes his appeal to his own money (he outspent Lazio 3 to 2), his "white-hot rhetoric" and perhaps to his class arrogance: he wrote of turning prisons into dormitories where welfare recipients would be taught hygiene!
If New Yorkers elect him (anything's possible), State politics will be even more strident, confrontational and disastrous.
What's Carl Paladino for? He'd cut Medicaid by $20 billion, cut taxes by 10%, and state government spending by 20%. To deal with the looming deficits Governor Paterson has been warning against? He also calls for giving the new governor (if it's him) authoritarian powers to carry out his program.
Good luck on that. The State legislature, regardless of party control, will not give up its powers, especially since Paladino will have to run against almost all elected legislators. Not surprisingly, as a multimillionaire businessman, Paladino also calls for slashing regulations on business. Real revolutionary! Let the frackers drill, and ruin our water supply forever!
Paladino's signature slogan is "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" The issue upon which he gained most traction up to the primary was his opposition to the so-called "Ground-zero Mosque." More strident than Lazio, his Republican opponent, he also pointed an accusing finger at Democrat Cuomo's support for the right of Muslims to build there. He'd use eminent domain to seize the site (two long blocks from "ground zero") to prevent Muslim developers from building their community center--in respect for our warriors fighting for our freedom overseas, etc.
He's been caught sending racist jokes and porn to colleagues via email, but his defenders say that it's "political correctness" that has to go. On his website he points out that the last NY governor from Buffalo (Grover Cleveland) became US President: he has "higher" ambitions.
What is it about Carl Paladino that energizes conservative voters? He's willing to say almost anything; he's been running for office for several cycles, but has been unbesmirched by the far-reaching scandals of the NY legislature: he's never held public office. He was opposed by most Republican leaders, and got only 8% of the vote in the party convention, so he's the ultimate outsider. But he brandished striking rhetoric, like promising to “take a baseball bat to Albany,” to break up entrenched politicos. Further, he does have some valid points: New Yorkers pay almost the highest taxes in the nation--especially property taxes--its legislature is dysfunctional and its government is one of the most bureaucratized.
But it's also got Wall Street: neither Paladino, nor Cuomo are willing to talk about taxing its huge profits, nor about taxing multimillionaires like him more fairly.
Paladino is the ultimate Roman Senator: he owes his appeal to his own money (he outspent Lazio 3 to 2), his "white-hot rhetoric" and perhaps to his class arrogance: he wrote of turning prisons into dormitories where welfare recipients would be taught hygiene!
If New Yorkers elect him (anything's possible), State politics will be even more strident, confrontational and disastrous.
Friday, July 16, 2010
The Politics of Resentment
The Right does resentment really well. They teach their constituents, and fence-sitters, too, that the other side is treacherous, or under-handed, unfair and taking advantage of them, in essence, taking away their American Way of Life. But they don't target the people who are doing this; they target: illegal aliens, unions, big government, regulation. While most people resent bankers and Wall Street, the Right protects them, yet attacks Democrats in Congress for supporting them. It certainly doesn't talk about inequality, or the extravagant salaries and bonuses of the financial elite. Now, it advocates tax-cuts for them!
The left doesn't do resentment well. Yet, a true left-wing populist could use the politics of resentment to good effect. Obama is no populist, nor a true lefty, but he has the potential for populism--in the run-up to the 2012 election--if he sees the electoral potential.
At this point in Roosevelt's first term, his major jobs creation program was the National Recovery Administration (NRA), which looked like Fascist central control of the private economy; it was a failure, and unanimously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Come the election in 1936, and Roosevelt found his populist calling, campaigning against "the economic royalists of our time."
Can you imagine Obama reaching that point?
But even FDR couldn't persuade Congress to allocate enough money to truly finance a recovery. Only patriotic fervor for war did that.
I wonder what is different now, than it was in 1935. The media was less concentrated, but there were many right-wing media outlets condemning Roosevelt as a Socialist or a Communist at every turn. People of means referred to FDR as "that man in the White House." Obama is that man from Kenya, and--the epithets are legion.
Could a left-wing populist shove Obama aside? If Obama were challenged from the left, he might respond--much the way Roosevelt did, in 1936.
Someone on the left needs to exploit the politics of resentment: resentment of those Wall Street "fat-cats," first of all. They were bailed out, but help themselves to more; resentment of the subsidies oil and coal companies receive, while Americans can't get jobs or unemployment insurance; resentment of huge disparities in salaries between top executives and workers; resentment of the way they are taxed: class resentment.
While people may disagree on abortion or gay marriage, immigration, or the financial overhaul, almost all of them hate Wall Street. For good reason: Wall Street siphons off an increasing share of US wealth for no discernible benefit--except to itself.
Resentment is a negative word, a negative focus, but it has a visceral appeal, and one that could lead to a positive outcome: a more egalitarian and prosperous society.
But to get there, the Left needs to be as cynical as the Right. Is that possible?
The best lack all conviction,
While the worst are full of passionate intensity.
The left doesn't do resentment well. Yet, a true left-wing populist could use the politics of resentment to good effect. Obama is no populist, nor a true lefty, but he has the potential for populism--in the run-up to the 2012 election--if he sees the electoral potential.
At this point in Roosevelt's first term, his major jobs creation program was the National Recovery Administration (NRA), which looked like Fascist central control of the private economy; it was a failure, and unanimously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Come the election in 1936, and Roosevelt found his populist calling, campaigning against "the economic royalists of our time."
Can you imagine Obama reaching that point?
But even FDR couldn't persuade Congress to allocate enough money to truly finance a recovery. Only patriotic fervor for war did that.
I wonder what is different now, than it was in 1935. The media was less concentrated, but there were many right-wing media outlets condemning Roosevelt as a Socialist or a Communist at every turn. People of means referred to FDR as "that man in the White House." Obama is that man from Kenya, and--the epithets are legion.
Could a left-wing populist shove Obama aside? If Obama were challenged from the left, he might respond--much the way Roosevelt did, in 1936.
Someone on the left needs to exploit the politics of resentment: resentment of those Wall Street "fat-cats," first of all. They were bailed out, but help themselves to more; resentment of the subsidies oil and coal companies receive, while Americans can't get jobs or unemployment insurance; resentment of huge disparities in salaries between top executives and workers; resentment of the way they are taxed: class resentment.
While people may disagree on abortion or gay marriage, immigration, or the financial overhaul, almost all of them hate Wall Street. For good reason: Wall Street siphons off an increasing share of US wealth for no discernible benefit--except to itself.
Resentment is a negative word, a negative focus, but it has a visceral appeal, and one that could lead to a positive outcome: a more egalitarian and prosperous society.
But to get there, the Left needs to be as cynical as the Right. Is that possible?
The best lack all conviction,
While the worst are full of passionate intensity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)