Democracy As Distraction
What do you call a political system in which a tiny wealthy class trains most of society not to think? What do you call a politics that can be bought and sold, but costs more than any but the wealthiest can pay?
It isn't democracy.
The amount spent on the mid-term elections, (over $4 billion) was staggering, and the sources of much of that money may never be known. We do know that a collection of European firms ponied up almost a million. We also know that a multi-millionaire spent millions on a personal vendetta. We know that two billionaire brothers funded groups like 60 Plus, purporting to be just ordinary folks, accusing sitting Democratic Congressmen of supporting heinous provisions supposedly in the healthcare law: they weren't in it, the Congressmen didn't support such provisions, but that didn't matter. Fifty of 53 Blue Dog to outspokenly progressive Congressmen and women attacked by groups like 60 Plus were defeated.
There was no "mandate" won in this election, unless it was for deceit and misinformation. People weren't voting based on facts, but because ad campaigns generated anger and rejection--of anyone tarred with the Democratic majority, or Obama. Fury was learned amnesia. The hard times were caused by laissez-faire economics, but voters voted for laissez-faire Republicans, because Democrats, elected in 2008 to fix the economy, had failed to fix it fast enough, except for the financial industry: unemployment and job insecurity are far too high. So, egged on by negative campaigns, voters flailed out wildly against Democratic incumbents.
Democracy is a mere distraction, Elizabeth Cunningham pointed out (links to her books onsite). The real power has been grabbed by a tiny, wealthy elite; they are like Roman Senators of old, exercising power through their wealth, and through the institutions they control: in this era, corporations, financial funds and the military. They can use unlimited funds to unleash attacks on any candidate who looks at them cross-eyed.
We still think we live in a democracy? Not all anonymous funding paid off: the campaign against California's climate law went down to defeat, despite piles of oil money thrown against it. Perhaps it was defeated because anonymous donors were identified--energy companies--and voters knew the companies opposed climate change legislation for one reason only: to protect their profits.
The "Green" referendum was an exception. Ad campaigns succeeded when their funding sources remained undisclosed; they succeeded among voters who didn't pay attention to politics until a few weeks before the election and among voters who depended for information on TV "news" (which made billions on the ads).
Unless there is a genuine mass movement, laws to require disclosure of funding sources (like the Disclose Act), and a revival of real journalism, we will be ruled by money until the selfish class bankrupts the nation. Then, when the US is a burnt-out cinder, it will move on to "pleasant climes" somewhere else.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Government "Overreach" and Powerless Emperor
My friend told me: "We are not an Empire. Empires were ruled by one man called Emperor. We are a Democracy, however flawed and inefficient."
It depends on one's definition. An empire, to me, is any state entity that attempts to rule over other states, or peoples, with or without their consent. A Democracy, on the other hand is a state ruled by the people. I suppose that's still formally the case, as it was even after Augustus took over in Rome, but the two are not mutually exclusive, again true in both the early Roman Empire and today. Augustus was formally elected. So was Obama. In the latter case, it was a genuinely democratic election, but that doesn't make much difference: the military apparently has the last say, anyway.
In the US, we have a President who made a great effort to go against "military wisdom," and decide that American troops should begin withdrawing from Afghanistan in the summer of 2011, and that the US would abide by the treaty signed by Bush to withdraw from Iraq in the same period.
Yet, already, General Petraeus and Secretary Gates are undercutting those stated policies. Petraeus is pushing for the President to back down on his Afghan commitment, and Gates told the Iraqis that "we" would happily stay longer if they asked. In addition to the rhetoric, actions on the ground speak louder: the huge, imperial-like embassy in Baghdad, and the huge embassy now to be built in Kabul do not bespeak withdrawal; they express an expectation that we will stay, as do the huge, self-sufficient "permanent" US bases.
We can spend three-quarters of a billion dollars to construct these imperial edifices and employ thousands in both Iraq and Afghanistan to build them (and $1,000,000 per soldier/year) but we can't spend money for jobs at home: that's government "over-reach" say the newly elected GOP Congressmen and Senators.
The "emperor" will not be able to spend money at home to stimulate job creation, or to green grow the economy; that's only possible in a non-imperial nation, like China?
So, instead, the Fed attempts to re-stimulate the economy through "quantitative easing," but everyone from bond speculators to the "mad-and-can't-take-it-anymore" crowd think this will roil the dollar into an inflationary spiral. On the other hand, what should policy-makers do? Let the nation--and probably the world--slide into a double-dip recession, and not only recession, but a new Great Depression, complete with trade war?
Note: there is no inflation, despite price rises in energy and commodities, which probably means that there is deflation in a lot of economic sectors.
Unless the President/Emperor can act decisively to stop the slide, we will descend into misery, and beggar the world, too. Will the US Empire collapse?
An emperor without power is the worst of all possible alternatives.
It depends on one's definition. An empire, to me, is any state entity that attempts to rule over other states, or peoples, with or without their consent. A Democracy, on the other hand is a state ruled by the people. I suppose that's still formally the case, as it was even after Augustus took over in Rome, but the two are not mutually exclusive, again true in both the early Roman Empire and today. Augustus was formally elected. So was Obama. In the latter case, it was a genuinely democratic election, but that doesn't make much difference: the military apparently has the last say, anyway.
In the US, we have a President who made a great effort to go against "military wisdom," and decide that American troops should begin withdrawing from Afghanistan in the summer of 2011, and that the US would abide by the treaty signed by Bush to withdraw from Iraq in the same period.
Yet, already, General Petraeus and Secretary Gates are undercutting those stated policies. Petraeus is pushing for the President to back down on his Afghan commitment, and Gates told the Iraqis that "we" would happily stay longer if they asked. In addition to the rhetoric, actions on the ground speak louder: the huge, imperial-like embassy in Baghdad, and the huge embassy now to be built in Kabul do not bespeak withdrawal; they express an expectation that we will stay, as do the huge, self-sufficient "permanent" US bases.
We can spend three-quarters of a billion dollars to construct these imperial edifices and employ thousands in both Iraq and Afghanistan to build them (and $1,000,000 per soldier/year) but we can't spend money for jobs at home: that's government "over-reach" say the newly elected GOP Congressmen and Senators.
The "emperor" will not be able to spend money at home to stimulate job creation, or to green grow the economy; that's only possible in a non-imperial nation, like China?
So, instead, the Fed attempts to re-stimulate the economy through "quantitative easing," but everyone from bond speculators to the "mad-and-can't-take-it-anymore" crowd think this will roil the dollar into an inflationary spiral. On the other hand, what should policy-makers do? Let the nation--and probably the world--slide into a double-dip recession, and not only recession, but a new Great Depression, complete with trade war?
Note: there is no inflation, despite price rises in energy and commodities, which probably means that there is deflation in a lot of economic sectors.
Unless the President/Emperor can act decisively to stop the slide, we will descend into misery, and beggar the world, too. Will the US Empire collapse?
An emperor without power is the worst of all possible alternatives.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
A Vet Who Wishes There Was No Veteran's Day
A veteran on Veteran's Day
wishing there wasn't any such thing.
What good does war do?
Why are humans so violent?
We are the most deadly predators
That ever evolved.
We dominate the planet,
Kill anything that challenges us, like wolves,
Or hunts us, like cougars, or steals our food,
Like rats.
And we treat each other the same way!
And yet, humans wouldn't survive
if they didn't cooperate.
We need food others grow, clothes others make, houses others build, cars others put together, computers others design, skills others know, and the list is almost endless, isn't it?
We make or do something in return.
That's called the economic system.
But some people have always been predators,
Others become prey.
From the first century BC to the fifth century CE,
Romans were the primary predators
in the Mediterranean and European world, at least.
From the fourteenth century to the 20th
the Europeans were the primary predators worldwide
lording it over, and ripping off "the natives."
In the 20th century, an upstart settler nation
That styled itself unconsciously on Rome,
but sprawled across a new continent,
Became the hero and then the new predator,
Dominant, globe-straddling, ideologically benign
in its exploitation and destruction: we destroyed
the village in order to save it, was their motto
in the third to last of wars that would bleed
its people white
and enrich its wealthy, who can leave the ruin
of the USA--for their homes in pleasant climes
and beautiful places, anywhere in the world but here.
The 21st century will not be American; it might be
Chinese, or Indian, or maybe Brazilian.
Maybe the 21st will be the century of the BRIC
Maybe, finally, it will be a century when Veteran's Day
Is no longer a big deal.
wishing there wasn't any such thing.
What good does war do?
Why are humans so violent?
We are the most deadly predators
That ever evolved.
We dominate the planet,
Kill anything that challenges us, like wolves,
Or hunts us, like cougars, or steals our food,
Like rats.
And we treat each other the same way!
And yet, humans wouldn't survive
if they didn't cooperate.
We need food others grow, clothes others make, houses others build, cars others put together, computers others design, skills others know, and the list is almost endless, isn't it?
We make or do something in return.
That's called the economic system.
But some people have always been predators,
Others become prey.
From the first century BC to the fifth century CE,
Romans were the primary predators
in the Mediterranean and European world, at least.
From the fourteenth century to the 20th
the Europeans were the primary predators worldwide
lording it over, and ripping off "the natives."
In the 20th century, an upstart settler nation
That styled itself unconsciously on Rome,
but sprawled across a new continent,
Became the hero and then the new predator,
Dominant, globe-straddling, ideologically benign
in its exploitation and destruction: we destroyed
the village in order to save it, was their motto
in the third to last of wars that would bleed
its people white
and enrich its wealthy, who can leave the ruin
of the USA--for their homes in pleasant climes
and beautiful places, anywhere in the world but here.
The 21st century will not be American; it might be
Chinese, or Indian, or maybe Brazilian.
Maybe the 21st will be the century of the BRIC
Maybe, finally, it will be a century when Veteran's Day
Is no longer a big deal.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Plutocracy?
Corporatocracy? Is it big corporations, or wealthy individuals who have stolen democracy and poisoned citizens' minds? It's both, of course. All I know is: people like Russ Feingold bit the dust, because they refused to play to the big donors, the corpocrats who were funding entities like Crossroads GPS.
Plutocracy means rule by the rich, and by that standard, the election of Ron Johnson over Russ Feingold, certainly looks like a plutocratic takeover. Feingold was not only not wealthy, he was fastidious about where he got his campaign funding, and he was notoriously independent when it came to the needs of the wealthy. So old fashioned: he insisted that ordinary people and their concerns mattered. The man who defeated Russ, Ron Johnson, is a millionaire plastics manufacturer who never held office, but was not particularly fastidious about where the money came from, and was the beneficiary of almost all the anonymously funded ads (most out of state); they either promoted his positions, or attacked Feingold.
On the other hand, Feingold raised significantly more money than Johnson (all from small donors, apparently), and spent more, perhaps more than Johnson and the out of state ad campaigns combined. The election in Wisconsin, and in many other states, has been described as "rejectionist." It was like that voter in my Election District who demanded a list of all the incumbents, so he could vote against them all. See my earlier blog for that story.
Except maybe the election wasn't really rejectionist. My two Democratic Senators were reelected easily, even if my Congressman lost. My Senators, Schumer and Gillibrand, are probably acceptable to what some are beginning to call the plutonomy, i.e. the wealthy, corporate movers and shakers. They have both been friendly enough to Wall Street.
The system we appear to be evolving towards looks increasingly like the end days of the Western Roman Empire. That was a true plutocracy, however, because there were no corporations. This, in some ways looks more insidious. The wealthy get what they want, which includes turning everyone else into the equivalent of serfs, but they also get to set their serfs, in far-flung parts of the world, against each other, competing for the lowest wages. And, because of mass media, they can persuade them that this is the way things have to be.
"The best democracies money can buy" means plutocracy, or corporatocracy on a world scale.
A fellow graduate student (long ago) was asked, while on a Political Science panel, what he thought about Revolution. Pointing to his small stature, he said, "I'm a small Political Scientist, so I don't like violence." I'm small, too, and I agree.
But I wonder how much misery people will willingly endure--before they erupt. Is that what suicide bombers are doing already? Are they the beginning of our era's barbarian hordes?
Plutocracy means rule by the rich, and by that standard, the election of Ron Johnson over Russ Feingold, certainly looks like a plutocratic takeover. Feingold was not only not wealthy, he was fastidious about where he got his campaign funding, and he was notoriously independent when it came to the needs of the wealthy. So old fashioned: he insisted that ordinary people and their concerns mattered. The man who defeated Russ, Ron Johnson, is a millionaire plastics manufacturer who never held office, but was not particularly fastidious about where the money came from, and was the beneficiary of almost all the anonymously funded ads (most out of state); they either promoted his positions, or attacked Feingold.
On the other hand, Feingold raised significantly more money than Johnson (all from small donors, apparently), and spent more, perhaps more than Johnson and the out of state ad campaigns combined. The election in Wisconsin, and in many other states, has been described as "rejectionist." It was like that voter in my Election District who demanded a list of all the incumbents, so he could vote against them all. See my earlier blog for that story.
Except maybe the election wasn't really rejectionist. My two Democratic Senators were reelected easily, even if my Congressman lost. My Senators, Schumer and Gillibrand, are probably acceptable to what some are beginning to call the plutonomy, i.e. the wealthy, corporate movers and shakers. They have both been friendly enough to Wall Street.
The system we appear to be evolving towards looks increasingly like the end days of the Western Roman Empire. That was a true plutocracy, however, because there were no corporations. This, in some ways looks more insidious. The wealthy get what they want, which includes turning everyone else into the equivalent of serfs, but they also get to set their serfs, in far-flung parts of the world, against each other, competing for the lowest wages. And, because of mass media, they can persuade them that this is the way things have to be.
"The best democracies money can buy" means plutocracy, or corporatocracy on a world scale.
A fellow graduate student (long ago) was asked, while on a Political Science panel, what he thought about Revolution. Pointing to his small stature, he said, "I'm a small Political Scientist, so I don't like violence." I'm small, too, and I agree.
But I wonder how much misery people will willingly endure--before they erupt. Is that what suicide bombers are doing already? Are they the beginning of our era's barbarian hordes?
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Government by Default
Corporate leaders, right-wing media moguls, speculators, bankers and hedge fund managers were all cheering as the election returns rolled in. Oh, they had their little disappointments, both in California and New York. The oil companies suffered the most, having spent well over a $100 million to repeal California's global warming law: their proposition failed.
Generally, big business won, defense won, and the American people were sold a shoddy bill of goods. What did the people vote for? Kicking the bums out. According to Pew's polls, the economy, i.e. jobs, was by far the most important issue (to 61%): what people wanted was more of them. Repealing health care reform, or substantially changing it was important to only 21%.
However, John Boehner, new Speaker-designate, vowed that a health care repeal bill was the first order of business. And what will Republicans propose as stimulus, to create jobs? Cut taxes, or specifically, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, including tax cuts for those poor mites who earn more than $250,000 a year, and even for those heroes of enterprise who earn a $100 million or more. That is supposed to create jobs, but corporations are already rolling in money, even as they lay off more employees.
The Fed's response is to go big ($600 billion) on Quantitative Easing, or creating money. Fed chief, Bernanke, nearly pleaded with Congress for greater fiscal stimulus, but he could see that Congress isn't going to pass one. Ironically, it may increase the deficit by cutting taxes and pushing for a more aggressive defense policy. Cutting "waste" is a fraud, and even Republicans know that.
So, how are Republicans going to solve the jobs issue? They can't; they will make it worse, so they will continue their diversionary politics--and blame all our troubles on Obama.
Meanwhile, the corporations are getting exactly what they paid for. Stalemate in Washington means: no interference, unilateral control over their own multinational estates and their pursuit of maximum profits, everywhere.
What corporations really want? Government to concern itself only with protecting them and their assets, both at home and abroad, but certainly not to concern itself with the people's welfare: ultimately, corporations want to control that, too, for a profit.
How would workers fare under unrestrained corporate rule? Forget about minimum wages, maximum hours, safe working conditions, or safe food and drink. Forget about a chance to "make it rich," an American dream that fools many into supporting the corporate agenda. Only a tiny elite will "make it," and most of them will come from the already elite. Everyone else will be overworked and underpaid, or cast off to survive however they can, including crime. Security companies should thrive! So should private prisons.
America's Roman Senators just took a giant step towards our equivalent of the Fall of Rome.
Generally, big business won, defense won, and the American people were sold a shoddy bill of goods. What did the people vote for? Kicking the bums out. According to Pew's polls, the economy, i.e. jobs, was by far the most important issue (to 61%): what people wanted was more of them. Repealing health care reform, or substantially changing it was important to only 21%.
However, John Boehner, new Speaker-designate, vowed that a health care repeal bill was the first order of business. And what will Republicans propose as stimulus, to create jobs? Cut taxes, or specifically, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, including tax cuts for those poor mites who earn more than $250,000 a year, and even for those heroes of enterprise who earn a $100 million or more. That is supposed to create jobs, but corporations are already rolling in money, even as they lay off more employees.
The Fed's response is to go big ($600 billion) on Quantitative Easing, or creating money. Fed chief, Bernanke, nearly pleaded with Congress for greater fiscal stimulus, but he could see that Congress isn't going to pass one. Ironically, it may increase the deficit by cutting taxes and pushing for a more aggressive defense policy. Cutting "waste" is a fraud, and even Republicans know that.
So, how are Republicans going to solve the jobs issue? They can't; they will make it worse, so they will continue their diversionary politics--and blame all our troubles on Obama.
Meanwhile, the corporations are getting exactly what they paid for. Stalemate in Washington means: no interference, unilateral control over their own multinational estates and their pursuit of maximum profits, everywhere.
What corporations really want? Government to concern itself only with protecting them and their assets, both at home and abroad, but certainly not to concern itself with the people's welfare: ultimately, corporations want to control that, too, for a profit.
How would workers fare under unrestrained corporate rule? Forget about minimum wages, maximum hours, safe working conditions, or safe food and drink. Forget about a chance to "make it rich," an American dream that fools many into supporting the corporate agenda. Only a tiny elite will "make it," and most of them will come from the already elite. Everyone else will be overworked and underpaid, or cast off to survive however they can, including crime. Security companies should thrive! So should private prisons.
America's Roman Senators just took a giant step towards our equivalent of the Fall of Rome.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Elections and Anger
"Quick, I want a list of all the incumbents, so I can vote against them!" the voter told me, at the election "in-take" table in our rural-ex-urban Town Hall.
I said I couldn't help him; it's against election law for an election inspector to politic. The Republican inspector sitting next to me remarked, "If he doesn't know who the incumbents are, maybe he should have paid attention for the last couple years; probably, all he did was complain."
The voter, a youngish middle-aged man, was angry and frustrated, but he epitomized, for me, the mood of the electorate, not just locally, but nationally.
There was also the older voter, who was clearly confused by the new voting system (New York recently installed optical scanners and paper ballots to finally comply with the HAVA federal election law; most people wanted their lever machines back). The old man couldn't believe he actually had to blacken ovals by each candidate, and after requesting bipartisan assistance, said he'd wanted to vote for Cuomo, but now he was so frustrated he'd just vote the straight Republican line; anything else was too complicated.
The scanner did break down, repeatedly, and, after several hours wait, was replaced by another from County headquarters. At least, the "emergency" ballots voted in the interim, were easily retrieved and scanned once the new scanner was up and running. Paper ballots are a sturdy paper record.
Our incumbent Democratic Congressman was voted out; the operative mood was simply 'throw the bums out,' even though the 'tea party' gubernatorial candidate, Paladino, was soundly rejected. My Republican colleague pronounced him "crazy."
Republicans swept to control the House of Representatives, but despite tea party rants, there was no clear mandate, not only because Democrats retained the Senate, but because what voters were reflecting was the inchoate anger and frustration of my angry voter, who had no idea what he wanted, except: throw the bums out.
How can the US govern itself as a democracy, when voters have no idea what they want? Voters chose rejection, not direction.
But then Democrats, after campaigning in 2006-08 for Change, were not capable of delivering sufficient positive change, nor, especially, of undoing the economic damage wrought by Republicans and Bush. So, now we get Republicans, aiming to restore the previous, unregulated economy, even though it led to the economic collapse that caused voter anger. There even might be enough spine-challenged Democrats in the Senate to go along.
Will the US experience long-term stagnation, like Japan? Likely--unless Obama, or a rival presidential candidate, promotes war as a solution. The Washington Post has suggested Iran! Let's add Somalia, Pakistan, Venezuela, Bolivia and Yemen: WWIII. The US could lose its empire through bankruptcy and defeat, just like Japan and Rome.
Then, American elites could move to China, Brazil, or?
I said I couldn't help him; it's against election law for an election inspector to politic. The Republican inspector sitting next to me remarked, "If he doesn't know who the incumbents are, maybe he should have paid attention for the last couple years; probably, all he did was complain."
The voter, a youngish middle-aged man, was angry and frustrated, but he epitomized, for me, the mood of the electorate, not just locally, but nationally.
There was also the older voter, who was clearly confused by the new voting system (New York recently installed optical scanners and paper ballots to finally comply with the HAVA federal election law; most people wanted their lever machines back). The old man couldn't believe he actually had to blacken ovals by each candidate, and after requesting bipartisan assistance, said he'd wanted to vote for Cuomo, but now he was so frustrated he'd just vote the straight Republican line; anything else was too complicated.
The scanner did break down, repeatedly, and, after several hours wait, was replaced by another from County headquarters. At least, the "emergency" ballots voted in the interim, were easily retrieved and scanned once the new scanner was up and running. Paper ballots are a sturdy paper record.
Our incumbent Democratic Congressman was voted out; the operative mood was simply 'throw the bums out,' even though the 'tea party' gubernatorial candidate, Paladino, was soundly rejected. My Republican colleague pronounced him "crazy."
Republicans swept to control the House of Representatives, but despite tea party rants, there was no clear mandate, not only because Democrats retained the Senate, but because what voters were reflecting was the inchoate anger and frustration of my angry voter, who had no idea what he wanted, except: throw the bums out.
How can the US govern itself as a democracy, when voters have no idea what they want? Voters chose rejection, not direction.
But then Democrats, after campaigning in 2006-08 for Change, were not capable of delivering sufficient positive change, nor, especially, of undoing the economic damage wrought by Republicans and Bush. So, now we get Republicans, aiming to restore the previous, unregulated economy, even though it led to the economic collapse that caused voter anger. There even might be enough spine-challenged Democrats in the Senate to go along.
Will the US experience long-term stagnation, like Japan? Likely--unless Obama, or a rival presidential candidate, promotes war as a solution. The Washington Post has suggested Iran! Let's add Somalia, Pakistan, Venezuela, Bolivia and Yemen: WWIII. The US could lose its empire through bankruptcy and defeat, just like Japan and Rome.
Then, American elites could move to China, Brazil, or?
Friday, October 29, 2010
Suicide by Politics
On the one side, we have Democrats saying they're willing to compromise; on the other, we have Republicans insisting they will refuse to do so. We have Democrats, and President Obama, who still think that the most important thing is to govern effectively, and attempt to solve the huge problems the US faces (I'm not saying their "solutions" are brilliant, but at least they're trying). On the other side, we have Republican leader Mitch McConnell, proclaiming their number one goal: to insure Obama fails as President, that he does not win a second term. Does that sound like governing?
If the Republicans win control of the House and/or the Senate, we can look forward to political guerrilla war to be carried out in both chambers. The only support Obama will get from any Republican is for more war and war spending. Or for any policy they push, like extending tax cuts to the wealthy, that would weaken Obama's support among his base.
If Democrats pull out a narrow win, and maintain control of both chambers, they will still be facing a determined, intransigent, and hostile opposition in no mood for compromise, or for coming to terms with the constraints of governing. The Tea Party, and the corporations that back it, have already shown they can punish any compromiser. So, the US will join the ranks of ungovernable nations, in which the powers-that-be are paralyzed. No decisive action, maybe even no budget, may be possible.
Perhaps NATO should send an occupying force to stabilize the country--ah, the US controls NATO!
One chance for governance would be if there were a reduced Democratic majority--many of the "Blue Dogs" would be gone--that realized that compromise was not possible, only governing by strict majority rule would work. The blocking filibuster would have to be jettisoned in the Senate: it could be in its first session of the new Congress.
I confess to donating a little to progressive campaigns, and phone calling for our local Congressman, but I'm not sanguine, not with the 100's of millions spent on negative ads by anonymous corporations against almost all Democrats.
We are facing a Supreme Court-induced coup d'état by the extremely wealthy, a new gilded age in which the corporate wealthy will determine US policy, just as it did in the 1880's.
Unlike the 1880's, however, the US is not a surging new power, but an aging behemoth, with a dangerous military and a costly empire. Meanwhile, China, India, the EC and Brazil will feel free to take over economically, given US stalemate, or worse, control by global corporations wedded to a wasteful status quo.
This is a different scenario for the fall of American Empire! Elections 2010 could be decisive.
If the Republicans win control of the House and/or the Senate, we can look forward to political guerrilla war to be carried out in both chambers. The only support Obama will get from any Republican is for more war and war spending. Or for any policy they push, like extending tax cuts to the wealthy, that would weaken Obama's support among his base.
If Democrats pull out a narrow win, and maintain control of both chambers, they will still be facing a determined, intransigent, and hostile opposition in no mood for compromise, or for coming to terms with the constraints of governing. The Tea Party, and the corporations that back it, have already shown they can punish any compromiser. So, the US will join the ranks of ungovernable nations, in which the powers-that-be are paralyzed. No decisive action, maybe even no budget, may be possible.
Perhaps NATO should send an occupying force to stabilize the country--ah, the US controls NATO!
One chance for governance would be if there were a reduced Democratic majority--many of the "Blue Dogs" would be gone--that realized that compromise was not possible, only governing by strict majority rule would work. The blocking filibuster would have to be jettisoned in the Senate: it could be in its first session of the new Congress.
I confess to donating a little to progressive campaigns, and phone calling for our local Congressman, but I'm not sanguine, not with the 100's of millions spent on negative ads by anonymous corporations against almost all Democrats.
We are facing a Supreme Court-induced coup d'état by the extremely wealthy, a new gilded age in which the corporate wealthy will determine US policy, just as it did in the 1880's.
Unlike the 1880's, however, the US is not a surging new power, but an aging behemoth, with a dangerous military and a costly empire. Meanwhile, China, India, the EC and Brazil will feel free to take over economically, given US stalemate, or worse, control by global corporations wedded to a wasteful status quo.
This is a different scenario for the fall of American Empire! Elections 2010 could be decisive.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Foreign $s Promote Global Warming in US
Now, it's official: European corporations, including BP, are contributing funds to US Senate campaigns--for climate change deniers and candidates who vow to block the cap and trade bill. Total contributions: $240,000, more than Koch Industries pursuing the same agenda. So, BP, for example, having polluted our Gulf of Mexico and killed workers in a refinery fire, now wants to buy politicians--so they can do more of the same, with no government interference.
European corporations are meddling in US politics. That they can, has been made possible by the Supreme Court's decision opening the way for corporate money in campaigns, despite Justice Alito shaking his head when Obama asserted that it would: Obama stated that the Citizens United decision opened election campaigns to foreign funds. Clearly, it has.
The list of corporations revealed by Climate Action Network Europe (CANE), are: BP, Arcelor-Mittal (steel), Solvay (chemicals), LaFarge (cement), GDF-Suez (energy), BASF (chemicals), Bayer (pharmaceuticals) and EON (energy). They are concerned about pollution controls: all are large-scale polluters. Europe has been in the forefront combating climate change, and these corporations have been forced to comply with EC regulations to reduce emissions.
Their thinking: if they can help elect climate change deniers and anti-climate change legislators in the US, then the US will do nothing about climate change, and they can argue that Europe shouldn't handicap itself with "burdensome" and "anti-business" regulations, either.
The same process is going on in California, which has an initiative on its ballot to nullify Schwarzenegger's widely acclaimed climate law. Money pours in from everywhere to nullify the law, but from energy companies especially.
It's fascinating to identify the allies of the Tea Party's American "patriots."
It's also fascinating to see that, so far, participants like stridently "patriotic" Fox News, have made no issue of foreign participation in our elections. In fact, it has been widely reported, but not fully substantiated, that many of the millions spent by the Chamber of Commerce and various other Tea Party groups like Rove's American Crossroads, come from foreign corporations.
It can be argued that this is only fair, since the US, and American corporations have spent money in foreign election campaigns for decades. But it is against US election laws, and it should be an issue in this campaign. Do Americans really want foreign corporations to help decide who governs us, and what policies we pursue?
Further, the funding revealed by CANE is "climate sabotage:" it is aimed at stopping any action to combat, or ameliorate climate change. And it is motivated by one thing only: corporate profits.
America is beginning to look, not so much like a declining empire as a Third World country, where all the (foreign and domestic) corporate heavies make the rules and select the players, for their own global profits.
European corporations are meddling in US politics. That they can, has been made possible by the Supreme Court's decision opening the way for corporate money in campaigns, despite Justice Alito shaking his head when Obama asserted that it would: Obama stated that the Citizens United decision opened election campaigns to foreign funds. Clearly, it has.
The list of corporations revealed by Climate Action Network Europe (CANE), are: BP, Arcelor-Mittal (steel), Solvay (chemicals), LaFarge (cement), GDF-Suez (energy), BASF (chemicals), Bayer (pharmaceuticals) and EON (energy). They are concerned about pollution controls: all are large-scale polluters. Europe has been in the forefront combating climate change, and these corporations have been forced to comply with EC regulations to reduce emissions.
Their thinking: if they can help elect climate change deniers and anti-climate change legislators in the US, then the US will do nothing about climate change, and they can argue that Europe shouldn't handicap itself with "burdensome" and "anti-business" regulations, either.
The same process is going on in California, which has an initiative on its ballot to nullify Schwarzenegger's widely acclaimed climate law. Money pours in from everywhere to nullify the law, but from energy companies especially.
It's fascinating to identify the allies of the Tea Party's American "patriots."
It's also fascinating to see that, so far, participants like stridently "patriotic" Fox News, have made no issue of foreign participation in our elections. In fact, it has been widely reported, but not fully substantiated, that many of the millions spent by the Chamber of Commerce and various other Tea Party groups like Rove's American Crossroads, come from foreign corporations.
It can be argued that this is only fair, since the US, and American corporations have spent money in foreign election campaigns for decades. But it is against US election laws, and it should be an issue in this campaign. Do Americans really want foreign corporations to help decide who governs us, and what policies we pursue?
Further, the funding revealed by CANE is "climate sabotage:" it is aimed at stopping any action to combat, or ameliorate climate change. And it is motivated by one thing only: corporate profits.
America is beginning to look, not so much like a declining empire as a Third World country, where all the (foreign and domestic) corporate heavies make the rules and select the players, for their own global profits.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
American Checkers, Persian Chess
Americans play checkers, the Persians play chess. In Middle East intrigue, Americans are outclassed. The Persians have been around for at least 5,000 years. Americans are johnnys-come-lately.
Americans in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq, contend with Iranian influence in the governments they support. Nuri al Maliki, Iraq's PM, has long-established ties with Iran, and has recently worked out a coalition agreement with the Sadrist party, supported by Iran. What is the US to do? Maliki was supposed to be our man, nurtured and financed by the US.
Now, we find out that Hamid Karzai, Afghan President, our client in Kabul, has a chief of staff, Umar Daudzai, who is not only pro-Iranian, but Iran's conduit for illicit cash in the millions of Euros a month. His mission, it seems, is to poison Afghan-American relations.
The plot thickens: Daudzai and his friends were members of Hezb-i-Islami, a brutal, militant Islamist group led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who now lives in Iran, but has ties to the Taliban. Iran in the west, like Pakistan in the east, maintains ties and provides aid to the Taliban, as well as the government. The intelligence communities of both neighboring countries vie for influence among the Taliban, the President, and with his opponents in Afghan politics.
While Pakistan is our reluctant, or resistant ally, Iran is our rival for power in the region. Yet, both have interests in furthering Afghan stability as well as their own influence; chaos on their borders might provide opportunities to extend their power, but it also endangers their own governments.
Just as the US blundered into an age-old civil war in Iraq--between Shiite and Sunni--a game in which the Persians were deeply engaged, it has done something similar in Afghanistan. Except, the Afghan game is much more complicated. The civil war between the government we installed, and the Taliban, has been ongoing for generations, between Pathans and the peoples of the northern alliance: largely Tajik and Uzbek. Meanwhile, the nations to Afghanistan's east and west have been vying for power in Afghanistan for hundreds of years.
The British Empire marched into Afghanistan from India, and was routed. The Soviets occupied Afghanistan, but were driven out. Will the US leave more gracefully?
Afghanistan's neighbors use more subtle methods: cash bribes, safe refuges, training, and control through their intelligence services. They will outlast the crude Westerners, who think that power comes from more and better weapons. Effective weapons, as the Vietnamese and Iraqis demonstrated, can be stolen, or cobbled together from the wasteful and over-generous supplies of the invader.
Rome in its decline, abandoned its push east into Parthia: the East was too complicated. The US, also a declining empire, is baffled by the complex intricacies of the region. Which will come first: bankruptcy or defeat? Or will the US withdraw in time?
Americans in Afghanistan, as well as in Iraq, contend with Iranian influence in the governments they support. Nuri al Maliki, Iraq's PM, has long-established ties with Iran, and has recently worked out a coalition agreement with the Sadrist party, supported by Iran. What is the US to do? Maliki was supposed to be our man, nurtured and financed by the US.
Now, we find out that Hamid Karzai, Afghan President, our client in Kabul, has a chief of staff, Umar Daudzai, who is not only pro-Iranian, but Iran's conduit for illicit cash in the millions of Euros a month. His mission, it seems, is to poison Afghan-American relations.
The plot thickens: Daudzai and his friends were members of Hezb-i-Islami, a brutal, militant Islamist group led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who now lives in Iran, but has ties to the Taliban. Iran in the west, like Pakistan in the east, maintains ties and provides aid to the Taliban, as well as the government. The intelligence communities of both neighboring countries vie for influence among the Taliban, the President, and with his opponents in Afghan politics.
While Pakistan is our reluctant, or resistant ally, Iran is our rival for power in the region. Yet, both have interests in furthering Afghan stability as well as their own influence; chaos on their borders might provide opportunities to extend their power, but it also endangers their own governments.
Just as the US blundered into an age-old civil war in Iraq--between Shiite and Sunni--a game in which the Persians were deeply engaged, it has done something similar in Afghanistan. Except, the Afghan game is much more complicated. The civil war between the government we installed, and the Taliban, has been ongoing for generations, between Pathans and the peoples of the northern alliance: largely Tajik and Uzbek. Meanwhile, the nations to Afghanistan's east and west have been vying for power in Afghanistan for hundreds of years.
The British Empire marched into Afghanistan from India, and was routed. The Soviets occupied Afghanistan, but were driven out. Will the US leave more gracefully?
Afghanistan's neighbors use more subtle methods: cash bribes, safe refuges, training, and control through their intelligence services. They will outlast the crude Westerners, who think that power comes from more and better weapons. Effective weapons, as the Vietnamese and Iraqis demonstrated, can be stolen, or cobbled together from the wasteful and over-generous supplies of the invader.
Rome in its decline, abandoned its push east into Parthia: the East was too complicated. The US, also a declining empire, is baffled by the complex intricacies of the region. Which will come first: bankruptcy or defeat? Or will the US withdraw in time?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Cut Social Security!
The conclusion always is: cut benefits and raise the retirement age. That's how Economists think, apparently. A self-described Economist, said, the way Economists do, that public employees were overpaid (i.e. paid "above the average" for private sector workers) and paid more "generous," hear 'over-generous', pensions. Those "golden years lifestyles" are going to have to change.
And yet, private pensions have become scarcer and scarcer, and remember what happened to retirees' IRA's and 501K's with the stock market crash? This is not progress. The retirement plans of public employees ought to be seen as a model to head for not to dismantle. Are we a humane society, or not? We should find ways to pay for those pensions, and for private pensions as well.
Furthermore, to say public employees earn more is to compare apples to oranges, and the economist knows it: government workers do not work in factories, or in the fields; very few are manual laborers, or work with heavy machinery; and most are more educated than the average.
But still, there is the assumption that benefits must be cut, not that taxes on the rich should be raised.
Why the rich? They have more money than they can spend, and tend to spend more of it abroad, or to speculate with it, thereby fueling asset bubbles. No, their money is not creating jobs. In fact, at the moment, capital is in the business of shedding jobs: when jobs are cut, corporate profits go up. Higher tax rates for the wealthy would create jobs, because they could fund government programs.
Many progressive economists point out something most Americans don't want to hear: Americans pay lower taxes than other developed nations, and the wealthy pay much lower taxes than they do in almost any developed country. Tax havens (i.e. places with even lower taxes) happen to be in poor countries, i.e. in countries with even fewer public services, but with private services westerners buy at low cost--for them, but not for most natives.
It is astounding how little play a mildly progressive politics has in the US. In "liberal" NY State, the highly popular Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, concedes economic policy to conservative positions: cut public sector pay; cut pensions and establish a property tax cap, similar to the one in California. California's tax cap defunded their world-class education system built up even under Reagan. California's experience with the tax cap has been not just an education disaster, but a financial one, too, as their huge deficit demonstrates.
But few dare to propose a "millionaire tax," though the wealthy pay lower tax rates than everyone else; few propose rebating the stock transaction fee: both could yield enough for NY to pay its budget.
We have entered an era, when only the wealthy are allowed to win--the interests of ordinary people are dismissed as "special interests." That kind of society led to Rome's impoverishment and its eventual "fall" in 476. It's happening here.
And yet, private pensions have become scarcer and scarcer, and remember what happened to retirees' IRA's and 501K's with the stock market crash? This is not progress. The retirement plans of public employees ought to be seen as a model to head for not to dismantle. Are we a humane society, or not? We should find ways to pay for those pensions, and for private pensions as well.
Furthermore, to say public employees earn more is to compare apples to oranges, and the economist knows it: government workers do not work in factories, or in the fields; very few are manual laborers, or work with heavy machinery; and most are more educated than the average.
But still, there is the assumption that benefits must be cut, not that taxes on the rich should be raised.
Why the rich? They have more money than they can spend, and tend to spend more of it abroad, or to speculate with it, thereby fueling asset bubbles. No, their money is not creating jobs. In fact, at the moment, capital is in the business of shedding jobs: when jobs are cut, corporate profits go up. Higher tax rates for the wealthy would create jobs, because they could fund government programs.
Many progressive economists point out something most Americans don't want to hear: Americans pay lower taxes than other developed nations, and the wealthy pay much lower taxes than they do in almost any developed country. Tax havens (i.e. places with even lower taxes) happen to be in poor countries, i.e. in countries with even fewer public services, but with private services westerners buy at low cost--for them, but not for most natives.
It is astounding how little play a mildly progressive politics has in the US. In "liberal" NY State, the highly popular Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, concedes economic policy to conservative positions: cut public sector pay; cut pensions and establish a property tax cap, similar to the one in California. California's tax cap defunded their world-class education system built up even under Reagan. California's experience with the tax cap has been not just an education disaster, but a financial one, too, as their huge deficit demonstrates.
But few dare to propose a "millionaire tax," though the wealthy pay lower tax rates than everyone else; few propose rebating the stock transaction fee: both could yield enough for NY to pay its budget.
We have entered an era, when only the wealthy are allowed to win--the interests of ordinary people are dismissed as "special interests." That kind of society led to Rome's impoverishment and its eventual "fall" in 476. It's happening here.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Anarchism 2010-style
They don't wear black masks, and they don't trash police cars. They go to rallies and hold up signs against Obamacare, or Guvmint, or claim Obama is a Muslim. Yes, the Tea Party.
It's not as if the Tea Party doesn't have sponsors. Again, it's not like those masked vandals, who eschew money, itself. The Tea Party anarchists, are for dissolving all government, eventually. Just follow their logic--and their sponsors.
Government isn't supposed to be doing all the things it does now, because, well, maybe they can point to mis-interpretations of our 18th Century Constitution, but really they just insist (against a good deal of evidence to the contrary) that government can do nothing right.
Logically, that will eventually extend to the police and the military. In both cases, private corporations are taking over increasing shares of these functions: private prison corporations and Blackwater/Xie come to mind.
So, the new anarchism hands over all power to huge corporations. Governments wither away. If we could do without government, I'd be happy too, but given the size of our population, and the complexity of our society, government functions would be taken over by corporations: not an improvement.
We cannot do without government functions, collective goods, and a whole host of services we just take for granted, like insuring clean, healthy food, reliable weights and measures, information about the economy, about the people in it. Everyone gains when more people are healthy, so public health is necessary: plagues and epidemics are really bad for business.
The Tea Party opposition to "Obamacare," is generated by vast amounts of money from healthcare corporations that want to keep the best parts--like guaranteed new markets (required by the individual mandate)--while jettisoning costly regulations like no pre-existing conditions. It's also opposed by wealthy ideologues like the Koch brothers.
There is a logical path from one to the other, however: it is empowering corporations and disempowering everyone else. In other words, the new anarchism could eventually usher in a world in which Google provides the economic data--it's attempting to, right now, with the price index--and Xie fights unending, profitable wars.
Do you remember Newt Gingrich proposing that Visa could collect taxes much more efficiently than the IRS?
And who would make the decisions? Why, the Senators and Congressmen and Presidents, who are elected by corporate campaign funds, of course. And they'll do the bidding of the corporations, perhaps meeting informally when disagreements do crop up.
People would only be necessary to pay the bills and provide the underpaid muscle and intellect needed for the corporations to make even greater profits. Corporate owners, i.e. the fewer and fewer people who really own them, would have unlimited wealth. And power.
Voila, Anarchism 2010! Just like Rome circa 477, after its "fall," before wandering marauders finish off most of the Romans. By 500, Rome had shrunk to 20-30,000 people (from over 1 million).
It's not as if the Tea Party doesn't have sponsors. Again, it's not like those masked vandals, who eschew money, itself. The Tea Party anarchists, are for dissolving all government, eventually. Just follow their logic--and their sponsors.
Government isn't supposed to be doing all the things it does now, because, well, maybe they can point to mis-interpretations of our 18th Century Constitution, but really they just insist (against a good deal of evidence to the contrary) that government can do nothing right.
Logically, that will eventually extend to the police and the military. In both cases, private corporations are taking over increasing shares of these functions: private prison corporations and Blackwater/Xie come to mind.
So, the new anarchism hands over all power to huge corporations. Governments wither away. If we could do without government, I'd be happy too, but given the size of our population, and the complexity of our society, government functions would be taken over by corporations: not an improvement.
We cannot do without government functions, collective goods, and a whole host of services we just take for granted, like insuring clean, healthy food, reliable weights and measures, information about the economy, about the people in it. Everyone gains when more people are healthy, so public health is necessary: plagues and epidemics are really bad for business.
The Tea Party opposition to "Obamacare," is generated by vast amounts of money from healthcare corporations that want to keep the best parts--like guaranteed new markets (required by the individual mandate)--while jettisoning costly regulations like no pre-existing conditions. It's also opposed by wealthy ideologues like the Koch brothers.
There is a logical path from one to the other, however: it is empowering corporations and disempowering everyone else. In other words, the new anarchism could eventually usher in a world in which Google provides the economic data--it's attempting to, right now, with the price index--and Xie fights unending, profitable wars.
Do you remember Newt Gingrich proposing that Visa could collect taxes much more efficiently than the IRS?
And who would make the decisions? Why, the Senators and Congressmen and Presidents, who are elected by corporate campaign funds, of course. And they'll do the bidding of the corporations, perhaps meeting informally when disagreements do crop up.
People would only be necessary to pay the bills and provide the underpaid muscle and intellect needed for the corporations to make even greater profits. Corporate owners, i.e. the fewer and fewer people who really own them, would have unlimited wealth. And power.
Voila, Anarchism 2010! Just like Rome circa 477, after its "fall," before wandering marauders finish off most of the Romans. By 500, Rome had shrunk to 20-30,000 people (from over 1 million).
Friday, October 15, 2010
Imperial Water
Water was falling steadily on September 30th, water carried by the prevailing winds all the way from the Gulf of Mexico. It's falling now, too. September's rain reminded me of the tortured history of water between this country and Mexico.
Here, in the Northeast, we usually have an abundance of water, although the "monsoon" we've had broke a six-week drought. But the whole western third of the US has always been deficient in water. The West used to be tagged, on old maps, as 'The Great Western Desert.' This included large parts of California.
Most of the West was also a possession of Mexico, until the Mexican war of 1846-48. The US annexed Texas before the war; after, it took over all the Rocky Mountain and Pacific territories (California, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada) when it won the war, which the US fought for blatant territorial aggrandizement. Americans called it "manifest destiny."
Some of the prized possessions of those territories are the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers. The Colorado flows from Wyoming into Mexico, all the way to Mexico's Gulf of California, or it did. Now, there are times when its flow is negligible by the time it gets to Mexico. It's the main source of water for California's Imperial Valley, one of the richest irrigated agricultural regions in the world.
There was a Mexican-American Water Treaty negotiated in 1944. It allocates more water to the US, from the Colorado and the Rio Grande, so Mexico does not receive the water enjoyed by American farmers and city dwellers in places like LA, the Imperial Valley (aptly named), and Arizona. I've seen lush fields of hay (!) in Arizona's deserts, for example.
So, first, the US took a large part of Mexico, and then it took a good deal of its water. That water is used to grow crops Mexico cannot. Then, to add insult to injury, the US negotiated NAFTA so that US subsidized corn could flood Mexico (where corn/maize first appeared more than two thousand years ago). Mexican peons couldn't compete; subsidized imports drove them from their smallholdings.
American corporations not only wanted to export surplus corn, but to establish maquiladoras over the border. So, the flood of cheap workers created by destroying Mexico's small farms was serendipitous.
However, China's lower labor costs made the maquiladoras less competitive. So, Mexico has a large unemployed, rootless labor force. Is it surprising that Mexicans stream across the Rio Grande, or the Arizona desert? Or that drug trafficking has become one of Mexico's principal industries?
Border States have become "hard-assed" about illegal immigration, but imperial bullying brings consequences. The flood of Chicanos into the US is one.
Lack of water is one of its principal causes.
Here, in the Northeast, we usually have an abundance of water, although the "monsoon" we've had broke a six-week drought. But the whole western third of the US has always been deficient in water. The West used to be tagged, on old maps, as 'The Great Western Desert.' This included large parts of California.
Most of the West was also a possession of Mexico, until the Mexican war of 1846-48. The US annexed Texas before the war; after, it took over all the Rocky Mountain and Pacific territories (California, Colorado, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada) when it won the war, which the US fought for blatant territorial aggrandizement. Americans called it "manifest destiny."
Some of the prized possessions of those territories are the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers. The Colorado flows from Wyoming into Mexico, all the way to Mexico's Gulf of California, or it did. Now, there are times when its flow is negligible by the time it gets to Mexico. It's the main source of water for California's Imperial Valley, one of the richest irrigated agricultural regions in the world.
There was a Mexican-American Water Treaty negotiated in 1944. It allocates more water to the US, from the Colorado and the Rio Grande, so Mexico does not receive the water enjoyed by American farmers and city dwellers in places like LA, the Imperial Valley (aptly named), and Arizona. I've seen lush fields of hay (!) in Arizona's deserts, for example.
So, first, the US took a large part of Mexico, and then it took a good deal of its water. That water is used to grow crops Mexico cannot. Then, to add insult to injury, the US negotiated NAFTA so that US subsidized corn could flood Mexico (where corn/maize first appeared more than two thousand years ago). Mexican peons couldn't compete; subsidized imports drove them from their smallholdings.
American corporations not only wanted to export surplus corn, but to establish maquiladoras over the border. So, the flood of cheap workers created by destroying Mexico's small farms was serendipitous.
However, China's lower labor costs made the maquiladoras less competitive. So, Mexico has a large unemployed, rootless labor force. Is it surprising that Mexicans stream across the Rio Grande, or the Arizona desert? Or that drug trafficking has become one of Mexico's principal industries?
Border States have become "hard-assed" about illegal immigration, but imperial bullying brings consequences. The flood of Chicanos into the US is one.
Lack of water is one of its principal causes.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Robbers (Almost) in Charge
You really do have to wonder, with a Democratic House and Senate--stalemated by a Republican minority--how a bill to retroactively legalize faulty foreclosures could slip through just before Congress went home. It legalized wholesale larceny! It didn't become law, because there was one honest man who could stop it: President Obama refused to sign it, a pocket veto.
And then there's the prospect of quantitative easing (QE2=printing money) by the Fed. Responsible economists agree: the economy needs more stimulus. The stimulus we've had was only enough to keep us from falling off the cliff. To get out of the high unemployment doldrums, a massive amount of money must be spent. There are two ways to do so. One is to invest in the nation, to increase everyone's wealth--green jobs and industry and updated infrastructure: a second fiscal stimulus. However, with political stalemate, it would be DOA in Congress the minute Obama mentioned it.
So, the other option is for the Fed to print money. This will probably stimulate some people in the economy--the bankers, already rolling in dough! QE 2 would create more money to buy up mortgage-backed securities, so that banks would then have money to--loan more money to the hoi polloi to stimulate the economy? Hah! How about gambling on Wall Street and the commodity exchanges, or investing in booming countries elsewhere? The Fed doesn't require the bankers to spend their new money domestically; they can spend it wherever.
That's one reason why a Fed stimulus is much less effective than a government stimulus; it has what economists call significant "leakage," like heating a house that's full of holes. Further, a Fed stimulus would exacerbate inequality, already at its highest level since 1929. The Fed would be giving banks trillions of dollars and saying: get even richer!
Would this 'stimulus' help ordinary folks? If it creates jobs, but fewer would result than you'd expect for the trillions of dollars created. If QE2 succeeded economically, homeowners might be able to stay in their homes; foreclosures might stop. Ultimately, that could create jobs, as the real estate market rebounded, but it would take awhile. How much of the stimulus would ordinary people see? Not much. QE2 could also unleash inflation, although deflation now is the greater danger.
What it really looks like: gangsters are in control. Not Mafia. No, these gangsters aren't so honorable. They're the bankers, investors, corporate leaders and politicians pillaging the nation, driving the American empire into poverty, while reaping windfalls. How else do you explain Congress passing the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act, legalizing illegal foreclosures?
How much can one man (Obama) do to stand up to organized crime on such a scale?
The prescient have already abandoned ship for places like Taiwan, or Belize.
And then there's the prospect of quantitative easing (QE2=printing money) by the Fed. Responsible economists agree: the economy needs more stimulus. The stimulus we've had was only enough to keep us from falling off the cliff. To get out of the high unemployment doldrums, a massive amount of money must be spent. There are two ways to do so. One is to invest in the nation, to increase everyone's wealth--green jobs and industry and updated infrastructure: a second fiscal stimulus. However, with political stalemate, it would be DOA in Congress the minute Obama mentioned it.
So, the other option is for the Fed to print money. This will probably stimulate some people in the economy--the bankers, already rolling in dough! QE 2 would create more money to buy up mortgage-backed securities, so that banks would then have money to--loan more money to the hoi polloi to stimulate the economy? Hah! How about gambling on Wall Street and the commodity exchanges, or investing in booming countries elsewhere? The Fed doesn't require the bankers to spend their new money domestically; they can spend it wherever.
That's one reason why a Fed stimulus is much less effective than a government stimulus; it has what economists call significant "leakage," like heating a house that's full of holes. Further, a Fed stimulus would exacerbate inequality, already at its highest level since 1929. The Fed would be giving banks trillions of dollars and saying: get even richer!
Would this 'stimulus' help ordinary folks? If it creates jobs, but fewer would result than you'd expect for the trillions of dollars created. If QE2 succeeded economically, homeowners might be able to stay in their homes; foreclosures might stop. Ultimately, that could create jobs, as the real estate market rebounded, but it would take awhile. How much of the stimulus would ordinary people see? Not much. QE2 could also unleash inflation, although deflation now is the greater danger.
What it really looks like: gangsters are in control. Not Mafia. No, these gangsters aren't so honorable. They're the bankers, investors, corporate leaders and politicians pillaging the nation, driving the American empire into poverty, while reaping windfalls. How else do you explain Congress passing the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act, legalizing illegal foreclosures?
How much can one man (Obama) do to stand up to organized crime on such a scale?
The prescient have already abandoned ship for places like Taiwan, or Belize.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
An Awful Anniversary
Ten years ago today the US invaded Afghanistan: it's the longest war in our history, and in some ways, the worst. I think, in terms of outcomes, Afghanistan will rank as the worst, for us, for the Afghans.
The US will not win this war; if the best-case scenario prevails, the US will withdraw in a negotiated settlement (now in the works); the Taliban will re-enter Afghan politics with some caveats, like abjuring violence. They would be a strong presence, but perhaps not dominant, because the Taliban can't win the war, either--unless it goes on for another ten years.
But think of the cost for this minimal settlement! Afghanistan has so far cost us $352.9 billion; over 1000 American combatants killed, over 2,000 foreign troops and perhaps 25,000 Afghan civilians. But war isn't just about people getting killed; it disrupts society, people's lives are ripped apart, their families stressed, or driven to starvation, their homes destroyed, their jobs gone, infrastructure annihilated. War is about some people losing a lot, even if they survive. In Afghanistan, American forces, setting up forward bases, appropriate peasant land and start building. Whether, there are internal politics involved (determining whose land is taken), those people have had their livelihoods, and their whole social identity, taken from them.
In Turkey, people like that did our dirty laundry (I was in the Army, there, in 1962).
But to the brass, ten years isn't so momentous. They have already leaked hints they expect to be in Afghanistan until 2020, or later. From Woodward's reporting--how the military boxed Obama in on Afghanistan--it looks as if, for the military, continuous war is what they aim for; and they'll work to get it. Either we fight in Afghanistan, or we'll have to find another war. It's not that hard, with media outlets like Fox News and WaPo.
For the military brass, war, war all the time, is a good thing. Promotions come faster, budgets keep growing, their power increases, and they have an easier time keeping the troops happy--as long as not too many are being killed. Easier in wartime? We have a professional military. During wars, all of them fare better than in peacetime in terms of pay and benefits. Of course, during war, those below the rank of colonel can get shot at, or blown up, or forced to endure inferior living conditions. But even privates now get balanced meals and hot showers most of the time.
It's why the poor enlist: a steady, if somewhat risky, job. Like Roman Legionnaires.
But civilians pay the bills: between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.
Actually, we borrow it from the Chinese!
The US will not win this war; if the best-case scenario prevails, the US will withdraw in a negotiated settlement (now in the works); the Taliban will re-enter Afghan politics with some caveats, like abjuring violence. They would be a strong presence, but perhaps not dominant, because the Taliban can't win the war, either--unless it goes on for another ten years.
But think of the cost for this minimal settlement! Afghanistan has so far cost us $352.9 billion; over 1000 American combatants killed, over 2,000 foreign troops and perhaps 25,000 Afghan civilians. But war isn't just about people getting killed; it disrupts society, people's lives are ripped apart, their families stressed, or driven to starvation, their homes destroyed, their jobs gone, infrastructure annihilated. War is about some people losing a lot, even if they survive. In Afghanistan, American forces, setting up forward bases, appropriate peasant land and start building. Whether, there are internal politics involved (determining whose land is taken), those people have had their livelihoods, and their whole social identity, taken from them.
In Turkey, people like that did our dirty laundry (I was in the Army, there, in 1962).
But to the brass, ten years isn't so momentous. They have already leaked hints they expect to be in Afghanistan until 2020, or later. From Woodward's reporting--how the military boxed Obama in on Afghanistan--it looks as if, for the military, continuous war is what they aim for; and they'll work to get it. Either we fight in Afghanistan, or we'll have to find another war. It's not that hard, with media outlets like Fox News and WaPo.
For the military brass, war, war all the time, is a good thing. Promotions come faster, budgets keep growing, their power increases, and they have an easier time keeping the troops happy--as long as not too many are being killed. Easier in wartime? We have a professional military. During wars, all of them fare better than in peacetime in terms of pay and benefits. Of course, during war, those below the rank of colonel can get shot at, or blown up, or forced to endure inferior living conditions. But even privates now get balanced meals and hot showers most of the time.
It's why the poor enlist: a steady, if somewhat risky, job. Like Roman Legionnaires.
But civilians pay the bills: between $880 billion and $1.03 trillion in fiscal year 2010.
Actually, we borrow it from the Chinese!
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Risk a Catastrophe?
"Oh, it will never happen!"
They all say that, about the possibility of one as a consequence of what they do--they being all of us. Whether it's a cat hunting mice and braving the threat of coyotes--they eat cats--or JP Morgan buying derivatives of uncertain value, or BP drilling offshore, or MAL Zrt, the Hungarian Aluminum Production and Trade Company, stockpiling the sludge byproduct from producing aluminum from bauxite.
In each case, after many times when disaster did not strike, after many times when disaster was possible, but did not happen, after many times when "experts" said it couldn't happen, it struck and struck hard, in the last two cases with huge environmental damage.
When will we learn?
There is a difference between the chances for profit and the chances for disaster. Some call this asymmetrical risk. You can risk profit, and if you lose, you lose your money; if you win, you gain money. But there are other risks, like those environmental disasters. The costs are borne by a much larger number than capital investors. In the case of the Hungarian sludge disaster, which just happened, not only did people die--of alkaline burns--whole areas of Hungary will have to be dug up, the soil replaced, towns have been abandoned, and in rivers like the Raba, most of the life in them may have been killed. The sludge may reach the Danube, which flows through other countries.
Who pays for all that? The offending corporation should, their investors impoverished if necessary, but you know that won't happen. BP has been assessed damages for its Gulf oil disaster, and for its earlier refinery disaster, as well--peanuts compared to its profits--but it isn't paying the cost of restoring the Gulf to its pre-blowout condition. It won't be. So, everybody else is: the fishermen whose livelihoods have been lost, for example, the hotel owners and workers, whose businesses have been destroyed, and so on.
In most capitalist enterprise, in fact, there are huge asymmetrical risks, some of which we are only beginning to be aware, like the possible links between earthquakes and mining or deep drilling--huge spaces are evacuated underground, in both cases: there could be consequences. Again: who pays?
Our market system is engaged in the most asymmetrical risk of all: profit in the short run for the risk in the long run of a climate so destabilized that most of the human population won't survive.
Who pays?
At least, when the Roman Empire fell in the west, the whole planet was not affected: only Western Europe and western North Africa. When our industrial system poisons itself, the whole planet will suffer; it already is.
But the climate change deniers, beloved of "conservatives" and the tea party, and funded by corporations, want us to take on that risk--so that Exxon, Peabody Energy and General Electric can earn even greater profits than they do right now.
Are humans rational?
They all say that, about the possibility of one as a consequence of what they do--they being all of us. Whether it's a cat hunting mice and braving the threat of coyotes--they eat cats--or JP Morgan buying derivatives of uncertain value, or BP drilling offshore, or MAL Zrt, the Hungarian Aluminum Production and Trade Company, stockpiling the sludge byproduct from producing aluminum from bauxite.
In each case, after many times when disaster did not strike, after many times when disaster was possible, but did not happen, after many times when "experts" said it couldn't happen, it struck and struck hard, in the last two cases with huge environmental damage.
When will we learn?
There is a difference between the chances for profit and the chances for disaster. Some call this asymmetrical risk. You can risk profit, and if you lose, you lose your money; if you win, you gain money. But there are other risks, like those environmental disasters. The costs are borne by a much larger number than capital investors. In the case of the Hungarian sludge disaster, which just happened, not only did people die--of alkaline burns--whole areas of Hungary will have to be dug up, the soil replaced, towns have been abandoned, and in rivers like the Raba, most of the life in them may have been killed. The sludge may reach the Danube, which flows through other countries.
Who pays for all that? The offending corporation should, their investors impoverished if necessary, but you know that won't happen. BP has been assessed damages for its Gulf oil disaster, and for its earlier refinery disaster, as well--peanuts compared to its profits--but it isn't paying the cost of restoring the Gulf to its pre-blowout condition. It won't be. So, everybody else is: the fishermen whose livelihoods have been lost, for example, the hotel owners and workers, whose businesses have been destroyed, and so on.
In most capitalist enterprise, in fact, there are huge asymmetrical risks, some of which we are only beginning to be aware, like the possible links between earthquakes and mining or deep drilling--huge spaces are evacuated underground, in both cases: there could be consequences. Again: who pays?
Our market system is engaged in the most asymmetrical risk of all: profit in the short run for the risk in the long run of a climate so destabilized that most of the human population won't survive.
Who pays?
At least, when the Roman Empire fell in the west, the whole planet was not affected: only Western Europe and western North Africa. When our industrial system poisons itself, the whole planet will suffer; it already is.
But the climate change deniers, beloved of "conservatives" and the tea party, and funded by corporations, want us to take on that risk--so that Exxon, Peabody Energy and General Electric can earn even greater profits than they do right now.
Are humans rational?
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Full Spectrum Dominance
…is what the Pentagon insists on maintaining--globally! Dominance: on Land, Air, Sea and Space. Among professional American military, the "long war" is an assumption, not just a consensus. Talk about Global Empire!
American Generals don't think much about economics. America is "the greatest nation on earth," so it can afford endless war everywhere. For the Generals, Admirals, Colonels, Majors, Captains etc., it's a great deal. Back home, we may have to scrimp, or worry about losing jobs, or homes, but the more wars there are, the better for the officers and NCO's. Defense industries depend on it and profit handsomely, too. So what, if the rest of America has to cut Social Security and Medicare to pay for it!
Defense spending is the largest "discretionary" item in the US budget, always, war or no war. And since WWII, it has always gone up. Why?
Have dangers escalated? No. With the end of the Cold War, the Soviets, the only power that could annihilate large parts of the US, collapsed; it re-emerged as resource-rich Russia, with only regional ambitions. The Chinese were briefly our enemies, during the Korean War, but they also have only regional ambitions, and never had the Soviet's capability of destroying the US.
Media commentators express alarm that a growing and prosperous China is building up its military, but its budget is about one-tenth of ours, even though it is the second richest nation, and the one with the most money to squander: we have huge trade deficits, they have huge surpluses.
So, why does DOD's budget go up every year? Why are we still in Iraq, although we're supposedly no longer fighting, and in Afghanistan, building huge bases, although we're supposed to be "starting" withdrawal next summer?
Excerpts from Woodward's Obama's War indicate that it really isn't his war. It's Petraeus's, and the other Generals'. Obama insisted on an exit date, and Petraeus, and company, have been chipping away at that ever since: if the military has anything to say (unfortunately, it has the loudest voice), we'll be fighting in Afghanistan until at least 2020. And we'll find other enemies, too, even if only a few hundred "extremists" here and there.
In the 1930's, Japan had the trappings of democracy, but it was controlled by the military, using the charisma of the Emperor to rally the nation. Tojo, a General, became Prime Minister during WWII. The victorious allies hanged him. He could be Petraeus's model.
Look for Petraeus to run for President in 2012. If he wins, he'll lead the nation like Tojo, who was probably responsible for the Pearl Harbor bombing--and Japan's subsequent defeat.
The military was also dominant in the late Roman Empire. That didn't do Romans much good against their enemies, the "Barbarians," however--even when they hired Barbarians to protect Rome against other Barbarians: See page: The Fall of Rome.
American Generals don't think much about economics. America is "the greatest nation on earth," so it can afford endless war everywhere. For the Generals, Admirals, Colonels, Majors, Captains etc., it's a great deal. Back home, we may have to scrimp, or worry about losing jobs, or homes, but the more wars there are, the better for the officers and NCO's. Defense industries depend on it and profit handsomely, too. So what, if the rest of America has to cut Social Security and Medicare to pay for it!
Defense spending is the largest "discretionary" item in the US budget, always, war or no war. And since WWII, it has always gone up. Why?
Have dangers escalated? No. With the end of the Cold War, the Soviets, the only power that could annihilate large parts of the US, collapsed; it re-emerged as resource-rich Russia, with only regional ambitions. The Chinese were briefly our enemies, during the Korean War, but they also have only regional ambitions, and never had the Soviet's capability of destroying the US.
Media commentators express alarm that a growing and prosperous China is building up its military, but its budget is about one-tenth of ours, even though it is the second richest nation, and the one with the most money to squander: we have huge trade deficits, they have huge surpluses.
So, why does DOD's budget go up every year? Why are we still in Iraq, although we're supposedly no longer fighting, and in Afghanistan, building huge bases, although we're supposed to be "starting" withdrawal next summer?
Excerpts from Woodward's Obama's War indicate that it really isn't his war. It's Petraeus's, and the other Generals'. Obama insisted on an exit date, and Petraeus, and company, have been chipping away at that ever since: if the military has anything to say (unfortunately, it has the loudest voice), we'll be fighting in Afghanistan until at least 2020. And we'll find other enemies, too, even if only a few hundred "extremists" here and there.
In the 1930's, Japan had the trappings of democracy, but it was controlled by the military, using the charisma of the Emperor to rally the nation. Tojo, a General, became Prime Minister during WWII. The victorious allies hanged him. He could be Petraeus's model.
Look for Petraeus to run for President in 2012. If he wins, he'll lead the nation like Tojo, who was probably responsible for the Pearl Harbor bombing--and Japan's subsequent defeat.
The military was also dominant in the late Roman Empire. That didn't do Romans much good against their enemies, the "Barbarians," however--even when they hired Barbarians to protect Rome against other Barbarians: See page: The Fall of Rome.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Coup in Ecuador, in US?
Will Obama say 'No!' to Ecuador's generals? A coup is unfolding at this moment. In April last year, Obama said "I am absolutely opposed and condemn any efforts at violent overthrows of democratically elected governments," in the hemisphere. That was at an OAS meeting. However, in June last year, his State Department didn't condemn the coup in Honduras, so it went forward. The ousted elected President could not return, and the subsequent election was carefully controlled by the pro-business coup leaders.
Is this how big business will get rid of the surge of social democracy in Latin America? One coup at a time. My family in Venezuela would be happy at the prospect, but even there, Chavez has significantly reduced inequality; he's still popular.
Simultaneously, corporations are trying to buy US elections: funding groups like Rove's Crossroads, pumping millions into the tea party, or like the Koch brothers, directly funding tea party insurgents and radical conservative Republicans.
There is a common theme to these corporate-friendly actions: corporations and their owners want to eliminate regulations. They want to be able to pollute, without having to pay costs they impose on society. They want to gamble with free taxpayer money; they want to terrorize illegal aliens--and employees, more generally--so workers are desperate enough to work for near-subsistence wages. They also want to be free to ship jobs and processes overseas without having to pay the costs of their leaving. They even want to continue tax subsidies for doing so!
In places like Ecuador and Honduras, they want governments they can buy, not ones that try to serve their peoples' interests. As my Venezuelan uncle enjoyed pointing out: it's much more difficult to buy off a democratic government--the executive, the legislators, the judges--than a dictatorship, where you deal with one guy, or a small group.
Corporate interests, or pro-corporate conservatives have already gained electoral power in Britain, Canada, Germany and France. African and Asian countries are venues for conflict, over resources, not religion. China and India are major players, while Japan stagnates.
What also seems to be emerging is a bent toward authoritarianism. You see it in Russia and China. Developing countries emulate China. It isn't the "Communism" that's imitated: it's the authoritarian politics and the hybrid command/market economics China invented.
You see the same authoritarian leanings even in the US, even with Obama; he's continued Bush's Security State, and has barely held the military at bay on Afghanistan.
What will happen if the radical conservatives win? More severe economic crises yet, and even greater immiseration of most of the people: it makes them docile workers. Dictators would, too.
The few would be on their way to achieving the kind of dominance held by Roman Senators just before Rome's fall in 476.
Is this how big business will get rid of the surge of social democracy in Latin America? One coup at a time. My family in Venezuela would be happy at the prospect, but even there, Chavez has significantly reduced inequality; he's still popular.
Simultaneously, corporations are trying to buy US elections: funding groups like Rove's Crossroads, pumping millions into the tea party, or like the Koch brothers, directly funding tea party insurgents and radical conservative Republicans.
There is a common theme to these corporate-friendly actions: corporations and their owners want to eliminate regulations. They want to be able to pollute, without having to pay costs they impose on society. They want to gamble with free taxpayer money; they want to terrorize illegal aliens--and employees, more generally--so workers are desperate enough to work for near-subsistence wages. They also want to be free to ship jobs and processes overseas without having to pay the costs of their leaving. They even want to continue tax subsidies for doing so!
In places like Ecuador and Honduras, they want governments they can buy, not ones that try to serve their peoples' interests. As my Venezuelan uncle enjoyed pointing out: it's much more difficult to buy off a democratic government--the executive, the legislators, the judges--than a dictatorship, where you deal with one guy, or a small group.
Corporate interests, or pro-corporate conservatives have already gained electoral power in Britain, Canada, Germany and France. African and Asian countries are venues for conflict, over resources, not religion. China and India are major players, while Japan stagnates.
What also seems to be emerging is a bent toward authoritarianism. You see it in Russia and China. Developing countries emulate China. It isn't the "Communism" that's imitated: it's the authoritarian politics and the hybrid command/market economics China invented.
You see the same authoritarian leanings even in the US, even with Obama; he's continued Bush's Security State, and has barely held the military at bay on Afghanistan.
What will happen if the radical conservatives win? More severe economic crises yet, and even greater immiseration of most of the people: it makes them docile workers. Dictators would, too.
The few would be on their way to achieving the kind of dominance held by Roman Senators just before Rome's fall in 476.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
This Age of Lunacy
$25.99 x 9,500=$246,905. Pretty good for a book that's just been published: that's the figure the publisher should take in from the Defense Department, which has bought all available copies of the first edition--to destroy them! The book: Operation Dark Heart, by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer.
As Col. Shaffer remarked: it's "ludicrous"--in this digital age--to think that the Defense Department, by buying 9500 copies, is going to eliminate all copies with questionable, supposedly classified information. The second printing does have many redactions, in some cases whole paragraphs, but meanwhile: at least one seller on eBay, claiming to have a first-edition printing, is asking nearly $2,000 for it. And you know, from Col. Shaffer's remark, that there are probably un-redacted copies flying around the Internet.
Oh, not to worry! DOD has money to burn, even if everyone else has to deal with slashed budgets. After all, after the Republicans get over their snit re Don't Ask Don't Tell, they'll probably want to raise the Defense Budget, and insure that we never withdraw from anywhere.
Of course, they'll complain that the government's deficit is going through the roof. Then, they'll say we've got to cut Social Security benefits--which are paid for through the payroll tax and the trust fund. Defense is paid through general revenue. And they'll say we've got to stop any stimulus spending, and any welfare spending: let the unemployed go jump off bridges! Let the poor (now on Medicaid) get sick and die!
So, we have 9.6% official unemployment, which is probably 17% when "discouraged workers" and involuntary part-time workers are counted. The right-wing seems to be saying: we can do nothing; we should be doing nothing. What's extraordinary is that their candidates still lead in the polls, especially, when Republicans insist that even the millionaires and billionaires should get tax cuts--and declare: everyone's taxes will rise unless the billionaires get tax cuts, too!
The best part is: we'll borrow the money from the Chinese, to make up for the shortfall of $700 billion that millionaires and billionaires will use to invest in--"emerging markets," i.e. countries like China, which is "where the growth is."
Chinese workers are only beginning to organize to demand better wages and working conditions. Americans? We're watching football, or reality shows, or worrying whether Lindsey Lohan will really stop drinking. Whadda we know about what's going on?
In besieged ancient Cirta, the Roman governor feared that closing the coliseum's games would drive citizens to riot. So, they continued, even as the Vandals broke through the city's walls. Vandals killed or enslaved virtually all of Cirta's Roman citizens.
We have our own age of lunacy, but it does have ancient parallels.
As Col. Shaffer remarked: it's "ludicrous"--in this digital age--to think that the Defense Department, by buying 9500 copies, is going to eliminate all copies with questionable, supposedly classified information. The second printing does have many redactions, in some cases whole paragraphs, but meanwhile: at least one seller on eBay, claiming to have a first-edition printing, is asking nearly $2,000 for it. And you know, from Col. Shaffer's remark, that there are probably un-redacted copies flying around the Internet.
Oh, not to worry! DOD has money to burn, even if everyone else has to deal with slashed budgets. After all, after the Republicans get over their snit re Don't Ask Don't Tell, they'll probably want to raise the Defense Budget, and insure that we never withdraw from anywhere.
Of course, they'll complain that the government's deficit is going through the roof. Then, they'll say we've got to cut Social Security benefits--which are paid for through the payroll tax and the trust fund. Defense is paid through general revenue. And they'll say we've got to stop any stimulus spending, and any welfare spending: let the unemployed go jump off bridges! Let the poor (now on Medicaid) get sick and die!
So, we have 9.6% official unemployment, which is probably 17% when "discouraged workers" and involuntary part-time workers are counted. The right-wing seems to be saying: we can do nothing; we should be doing nothing. What's extraordinary is that their candidates still lead in the polls, especially, when Republicans insist that even the millionaires and billionaires should get tax cuts--and declare: everyone's taxes will rise unless the billionaires get tax cuts, too!
The best part is: we'll borrow the money from the Chinese, to make up for the shortfall of $700 billion that millionaires and billionaires will use to invest in--"emerging markets," i.e. countries like China, which is "where the growth is."
Chinese workers are only beginning to organize to demand better wages and working conditions. Americans? We're watching football, or reality shows, or worrying whether Lindsey Lohan will really stop drinking. Whadda we know about what's going on?
In besieged ancient Cirta, the Roman governor feared that closing the coliseum's games would drive citizens to riot. So, they continued, even as the Vandals broke through the city's walls. Vandals killed or enslaved virtually all of Cirta's Roman citizens.
We have our own age of lunacy, but it does have ancient parallels.
Monday, September 20, 2010
A Global Disease?
It's not just the US that's going crazy. We have Tea Party extremists and anti-immigrant nastiness, but now even Sweden, moderate, neutral, social democratic, has elected an anti-immigrant party to parliament. There are strong anti-immigrant parties in Holland, Denmark and Norway, and similar parties in Central and Eastern Europe. France not only has the National Front, but President Sarkozy's Roma removals pander to anti-immigrant anger.
The Middle East is in turmoil, driven by extremist actions of fewer than 5000 militants leveraging millions.
China's phenomenal growth drives changes globally. Mexicans and Central Americans stream northward, not an invasion, but a flood of desperate people, choosing between privation--exacerbated by American trade policy--and a better life that can be won with hard work. They generate anger in America.
The tea party movement expresses anger, frustration and fear. It taps into the zeitgeist. Our lives are changing, and for ordinary Americans they are not getting better. The Tea Party movement exhibits the extremism of a majority fearful of losing dominance: "We want our country back!" they scream. The KKK was a response to similar changes in the Civil War's aftermath. Then and now, elites used white anxiety to blame victims and ignore the perp--the elites. It isn't just the imminent specter of a majority of minorities; that's only what drives tea party fury. The movement expresses the economic frustrations of the non-elite: it shouldn't be ignored or dismissed.
Progressives should harness that anger. The economic takeover engineered by corporate elites, rationalized by "conservative" think tanks, its funders now funding tea party extremism, is the real reason why wages have stagnated, not just this year, but since the 1970's. Productivity since has increased almost exponentially, but through the Reagan counter-revolution and after, the tiny, wealthy elite at the top has captured its rewards.
That's why unions have been savaged; that's why "free" trade has exported our manufacturing base and jobs; that's why the "recovery" isn't creating jobs now; it's cheaper and safer to drive your fearful workers harder--or export operations to China or Poland.
No wonder people are angry!
Don't sneer at Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell. Democrats need to counter with emotional content of their own. Rational argument may support the Democrats' case, but doesn't convince angry people. What could: emotional appeals. Against the greedy, who demand an extension of high income tax cuts: block them and demand taxing Wall Street's rip-offs; unveil a big jobs program, a 21st century WPA; campaign against unfair employers for workers' rights; and promote fair trade that protects America and its workers.
Economic issues can cut close to peoples' jugulars.
Are progressives so afraid of feelings?
In the 1930's, nations went two ways: following Nazi rant, or FDR's democratic alternative. Both made emotional appeals.
Which will it be?
The Middle East is in turmoil, driven by extremist actions of fewer than 5000 militants leveraging millions.
China's phenomenal growth drives changes globally. Mexicans and Central Americans stream northward, not an invasion, but a flood of desperate people, choosing between privation--exacerbated by American trade policy--and a better life that can be won with hard work. They generate anger in America.
The tea party movement expresses anger, frustration and fear. It taps into the zeitgeist. Our lives are changing, and for ordinary Americans they are not getting better. The Tea Party movement exhibits the extremism of a majority fearful of losing dominance: "We want our country back!" they scream. The KKK was a response to similar changes in the Civil War's aftermath. Then and now, elites used white anxiety to blame victims and ignore the perp--the elites. It isn't just the imminent specter of a majority of minorities; that's only what drives tea party fury. The movement expresses the economic frustrations of the non-elite: it shouldn't be ignored or dismissed.
Progressives should harness that anger. The economic takeover engineered by corporate elites, rationalized by "conservative" think tanks, its funders now funding tea party extremism, is the real reason why wages have stagnated, not just this year, but since the 1970's. Productivity since has increased almost exponentially, but through the Reagan counter-revolution and after, the tiny, wealthy elite at the top has captured its rewards.
That's why unions have been savaged; that's why "free" trade has exported our manufacturing base and jobs; that's why the "recovery" isn't creating jobs now; it's cheaper and safer to drive your fearful workers harder--or export operations to China or Poland.
No wonder people are angry!
Don't sneer at Sharron Angle or Christine O'Donnell. Democrats need to counter with emotional content of their own. Rational argument may support the Democrats' case, but doesn't convince angry people. What could: emotional appeals. Against the greedy, who demand an extension of high income tax cuts: block them and demand taxing Wall Street's rip-offs; unveil a big jobs program, a 21st century WPA; campaign against unfair employers for workers' rights; and promote fair trade that protects America and its workers.
Economic issues can cut close to peoples' jugulars.
Are progressives so afraid of feelings?
In the 1930's, nations went two ways: following Nazi rant, or FDR's democratic alternative. Both made emotional appeals.
Which will it be?
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Small Business's #1 Worry?
A survey of small businessmen by the National Federation of Independent Business found: it's not taxes, and it's not credit. It's no customers.
So, the political dialogue about taxes or credit is less relevant to them than anything that would increase demand, like accelerating job creation. So, here are Democrats saying middle income tax cuts ought to be preserved, and Republicans insisting tax cuts for the wealthy not only must be maintained, but made permanent--at a cost of $700-800 billion to the debt--because, they insist some are small business proprietors--though few are). In addition, Democrats (with one Republican) have just passed similar bills in House and Senate, providing tax cuts and extended loans to small businesses: to spur hiring. But they probably won't have much effect.
What no one, either in the administration, or in either party, or either chamber, seems to get is this: people need jobs; business needs employed people; but businesses aren't employing them. So, what's the problem? Has government never acted as temporary employer of last resort before?
There are many areas where government could meet huge needs. The unemployed don't have to have jobs digging holes and filling them. We no longer allow heavy manual labor--we have machines for that, which costs more money and skills--but we could use clean up crews, teachers assistants, parking meter attendants, construction workers to repair and rebuild, and so on. Local governments could manage local projects.
If people are so concerned about illegal immigration, then they should go to work bringing in harvests, following crops northward; maybe the Feds could subsidize citizen workers.
The point is: what's holding up the recovery is a lack of jobs. Apparently, tinkering with loans, credits and taxes is not enough. Of course it isn't. Why would a business invest in higher output, by hiring more workers, or buying more machinery, when demand for the good or service they're trying to sell is so feeble and uncertain?
What are people thinking? The best and the brightest are pretty stupid.
When no one else creates jobs, government should be the employer of last resort. It can be. There are many things of lasting value that were built by the WPA, like the mural scenes in Post Offices, and the forest windbreaks planted by the CCC in the Great Plains; they stopped the dustbowl storms.
Yes, there would be a temporary hike to the deficit, but if there are no jobs, deficits will march off into the future--no jobs mean no taxes paid, and welfare or basic survival costs to pay for--or the costs of a repressive police state to keep down the growing, angry underclass, for whom there are no jobs.
The latter sounds a bit like the late Roman Empire: the wealthy got wealthier and enslaved everyone else, until the whole system collapsed in the face of the barbarians.
So, the political dialogue about taxes or credit is less relevant to them than anything that would increase demand, like accelerating job creation. So, here are Democrats saying middle income tax cuts ought to be preserved, and Republicans insisting tax cuts for the wealthy not only must be maintained, but made permanent--at a cost of $700-800 billion to the debt--because, they insist some are small business proprietors--though few are). In addition, Democrats (with one Republican) have just passed similar bills in House and Senate, providing tax cuts and extended loans to small businesses: to spur hiring. But they probably won't have much effect.
What no one, either in the administration, or in either party, or either chamber, seems to get is this: people need jobs; business needs employed people; but businesses aren't employing them. So, what's the problem? Has government never acted as temporary employer of last resort before?
There are many areas where government could meet huge needs. The unemployed don't have to have jobs digging holes and filling them. We no longer allow heavy manual labor--we have machines for that, which costs more money and skills--but we could use clean up crews, teachers assistants, parking meter attendants, construction workers to repair and rebuild, and so on. Local governments could manage local projects.
If people are so concerned about illegal immigration, then they should go to work bringing in harvests, following crops northward; maybe the Feds could subsidize citizen workers.
The point is: what's holding up the recovery is a lack of jobs. Apparently, tinkering with loans, credits and taxes is not enough. Of course it isn't. Why would a business invest in higher output, by hiring more workers, or buying more machinery, when demand for the good or service they're trying to sell is so feeble and uncertain?
What are people thinking? The best and the brightest are pretty stupid.
When no one else creates jobs, government should be the employer of last resort. It can be. There are many things of lasting value that were built by the WPA, like the mural scenes in Post Offices, and the forest windbreaks planted by the CCC in the Great Plains; they stopped the dustbowl storms.
Yes, there would be a temporary hike to the deficit, but if there are no jobs, deficits will march off into the future--no jobs mean no taxes paid, and welfare or basic survival costs to pay for--or the costs of a repressive police state to keep down the growing, angry underclass, for whom there are no jobs.
The latter sounds a bit like the late Roman Empire: the wealthy got wealthier and enslaved everyone else, until the whole system collapsed in the face of the barbarians.
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, September 10, 2010
Man Threatens to Blow Up World
Man threatens to blow up the world, but backs down because he's wangled a stint on TV--that's all he wanted, anyway: attention.
That's a bit like "Doctor" Terry Jones agreeing not to burn those qur'ans, after: General Petraeus and the President mouthed off about it; Gates, Secretary of Defense, called him; a local Imam spoke to him about interceding with the "Ground Zero Mosque" organizer and all the channels were covering him as hot news.
So, this Terry Jones is a Doctor (presumably of Divinity), from an unaccredited school where he bought his degree online, preaches in a run-down church to about 50 parishioners and sells used furniture on ebay. He apparently doesn't hear what he doesn't want to: that the Imam had arranged an appointment with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is central to the disputed Muslim community center in lower Manhattan (it's not at Ground Zero), but had agreed to nothing, apparently not even the meeting.
This is how you gain notoriety. This nonentity is suddenly known round the world. And you know what, there will be more Terry Jones's. It's a way to become famous, almost instantaneously. We used to have famous outlaws--bank robbers, murderers--and now?
Note: outlaws would now be called criminals: notice the difference a word makes.
How do you get a book noticed? The same way: by doing or saying or writing something outrageous, or perhaps revealing state secrets--but just a little, like Anthony Shaffer. Shaffer's Afghan memoir, Operation Dark Heart, threatens security, some claim: Army reviewers didn't, but Defense Intelligence Agency reviewers did. Shaffer worked with DIA.
So how is Shaffer's book being noticed? He's in the news, because the Defense Department is going to buy up all 10,000 copies of his first edition, so that objectionable passages can be deleted. A good use for Pentagon money!
However, some review copies have--escaped!
Will Shaffer have a bestseller on his hands? The next printing will be considerably more than 10,000, I'm sure. And maybe, once the revised edition arrives, some reviewer will release the redacted passages to Wikileaks.
Some people achieve fame through luck and talent, others through stupidity, incompetence, or sheer nastiness.
Do you know the old-fashioned way to become famous? Come from a lofty family, think well of yourself, and play by the rules. A more modern variation is: get a good education, meet the right people, and work deals.
Fifth Century Rome was old-fashioned--until it collapsed. Senators' sons followed Senators; the right people knew the right people and spent a lot of money; new ideas were distrusted and literary style was most important. Meanwhile, the western Empire slipped out of their hands, and into the control of the Germanic tribes.
Some of their leaders were a bit like Sarah Palin!
That's a bit like "Doctor" Terry Jones agreeing not to burn those qur'ans, after: General Petraeus and the President mouthed off about it; Gates, Secretary of Defense, called him; a local Imam spoke to him about interceding with the "Ground Zero Mosque" organizer and all the channels were covering him as hot news.
So, this Terry Jones is a Doctor (presumably of Divinity), from an unaccredited school where he bought his degree online, preaches in a run-down church to about 50 parishioners and sells used furniture on ebay. He apparently doesn't hear what he doesn't want to: that the Imam had arranged an appointment with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who is central to the disputed Muslim community center in lower Manhattan (it's not at Ground Zero), but had agreed to nothing, apparently not even the meeting.
This is how you gain notoriety. This nonentity is suddenly known round the world. And you know what, there will be more Terry Jones's. It's a way to become famous, almost instantaneously. We used to have famous outlaws--bank robbers, murderers--and now?
Note: outlaws would now be called criminals: notice the difference a word makes.
How do you get a book noticed? The same way: by doing or saying or writing something outrageous, or perhaps revealing state secrets--but just a little, like Anthony Shaffer. Shaffer's Afghan memoir, Operation Dark Heart, threatens security, some claim: Army reviewers didn't, but Defense Intelligence Agency reviewers did. Shaffer worked with DIA.
So how is Shaffer's book being noticed? He's in the news, because the Defense Department is going to buy up all 10,000 copies of his first edition, so that objectionable passages can be deleted. A good use for Pentagon money!
However, some review copies have--escaped!
Will Shaffer have a bestseller on his hands? The next printing will be considerably more than 10,000, I'm sure. And maybe, once the revised edition arrives, some reviewer will release the redacted passages to Wikileaks.
Some people achieve fame through luck and talent, others through stupidity, incompetence, or sheer nastiness.
Do you know the old-fashioned way to become famous? Come from a lofty family, think well of yourself, and play by the rules. A more modern variation is: get a good education, meet the right people, and work deals.
Fifth Century Rome was old-fashioned--until it collapsed. Senators' sons followed Senators; the right people knew the right people and spent a lot of money; new ideas were distrusted and literary style was most important. Meanwhile, the western Empire slipped out of their hands, and into the control of the Germanic tribes.
Some of their leaders were a bit like Sarah Palin!
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Playing Cynical Politics
Politicians play politics as naturally as the Pope says Mass, but there is a difference between above-board and cynical politics. Now, both sides are playing both.
In above-board politics, a politician will push for what he's really for, whether it's tax-cuts or new taxes, more oil-drilling in the Gulf, or stopping it cold.
The dialog on tax cuts is fairly straightforward: the Republicans are for making the Bush tax cuts permanent, since they have enriched their primary constituency (and campaign funders), the very wealthy. The increase in holdings of the top 1% of income classes, and even the top 0.1% since Bush cut taxes is phenomenal.
Obama is also straightforward when he opposes the extension of tax-cuts for the wealthy: an extension would cost $700 billion in the next ten years; he needs those funds to bring down the deficits; extending tax cuts would raise them. The wealthy are sitting on their riches, not investing in jobs, so losing those tax cuts shouldn't hurt job growth.
But Republicans are also against anything Obama proposes, including tax breaks they have championed for years for corporations. Why? Cynical politics. They are against any policy proposed by Obama, or Congressional Democrats. It doesn't matter if they were for precisely that policy beforehand: if he's for it, they're against it. This is true of Obama's healthcare, too. Most of the elements of the new law are similar to Massachusetts' health care law, signed by Republican Governor Mitt Romney--who now advocates repealing the national legislation!
Up until now, it looked as if Obama was trying to promote compromise, by incorporating Republican elements (as in the health care bill) to gain bipartisan support, but now he's playing cynical politics, too. His economic proposals are not really short-term stimulus programs: they are dares. Making the R&D tax credit permanent, would not generate many new jobs, although Obama claims it would, but it does call the Republicans' bluff.
Obama is about to call for a two-year corporate investment tax credit allowing 100% write offs on investments in plant and equipment. The R&D proposal would cost over $100 billion, the write offs could cost $300 billion.
But why would corporations invest in plant and equipment, when there is lagging demand for goods and services? So, they can lay off more workers, perhaps. Neither proposal would generate many jobs, but Republicans have advocated for both, yet will block both; they don't want Democrats to get the credit: (cynical politics).
Then, Obama could highlight their obstructionism and say; Republicans even block their own proposals to stimulate the economy. This is cynical politics: would Obama propose tax credits, if he thought they would pass?
Meanwhile, businesses squeeze profits from fewer workers and don't hire, while nearly 20% of the workforce isn't working.
Which cynical politics will work best?
In above-board politics, a politician will push for what he's really for, whether it's tax-cuts or new taxes, more oil-drilling in the Gulf, or stopping it cold.
The dialog on tax cuts is fairly straightforward: the Republicans are for making the Bush tax cuts permanent, since they have enriched their primary constituency (and campaign funders), the very wealthy. The increase in holdings of the top 1% of income classes, and even the top 0.1% since Bush cut taxes is phenomenal.
Obama is also straightforward when he opposes the extension of tax-cuts for the wealthy: an extension would cost $700 billion in the next ten years; he needs those funds to bring down the deficits; extending tax cuts would raise them. The wealthy are sitting on their riches, not investing in jobs, so losing those tax cuts shouldn't hurt job growth.
But Republicans are also against anything Obama proposes, including tax breaks they have championed for years for corporations. Why? Cynical politics. They are against any policy proposed by Obama, or Congressional Democrats. It doesn't matter if they were for precisely that policy beforehand: if he's for it, they're against it. This is true of Obama's healthcare, too. Most of the elements of the new law are similar to Massachusetts' health care law, signed by Republican Governor Mitt Romney--who now advocates repealing the national legislation!
Up until now, it looked as if Obama was trying to promote compromise, by incorporating Republican elements (as in the health care bill) to gain bipartisan support, but now he's playing cynical politics, too. His economic proposals are not really short-term stimulus programs: they are dares. Making the R&D tax credit permanent, would not generate many new jobs, although Obama claims it would, but it does call the Republicans' bluff.
Obama is about to call for a two-year corporate investment tax credit allowing 100% write offs on investments in plant and equipment. The R&D proposal would cost over $100 billion, the write offs could cost $300 billion.
But why would corporations invest in plant and equipment, when there is lagging demand for goods and services? So, they can lay off more workers, perhaps. Neither proposal would generate many jobs, but Republicans have advocated for both, yet will block both; they don't want Democrats to get the credit: (cynical politics).
Then, Obama could highlight their obstructionism and say; Republicans even block their own proposals to stimulate the economy. This is cynical politics: would Obama propose tax credits, if he thought they would pass?
Meanwhile, businesses squeeze profits from fewer workers and don't hire, while nearly 20% of the workforce isn't working.
Which cynical politics will work best?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)