The debt ceiling debate is degenerating into a game of chicken. Each side is waiting for the other to cave. Obama says we have to set a long-term deficit/debt reduction in process, and wants to shoot for $4.5 Trillions in cuts over ten years; the Republicans, until recently, were saying they'd work for a $2 Trillion cut, because, frankly, they're scared of taxes. Scared that if they vote for any increase in taxes for the wealthy (they call them "job creators," which they definitely are not, especially now in this jobless "recovery"), they'll suddenly lose all the huge corporate campaign contributions they're counting on to gain the majority and the Presidency in 2012.
Perhaps the Republican leaders do get it, that a default would be bad, very bad, but both Boehner and McConnell have as much as said, more than once, that their real mandate is to insure that Obama fails, and is not re-elected. If they do force a default, however, it's not clear that Obama wouldn't be able to campaign against them for causing it, and for opening the way for other unpleasant things: like the dollar no longer being the reserve currency, our huge debt becoming hugely more expensive and our freedom to import whatever we want whenever we want it going away.
I think Obama knows this, so he's playing chicken, too. No short-term fixes, he asserts: this is America; we don't fix our books for 3 months at a time.
Some tea party types do actually argue that a default would be a good thing, and I could, too, from one perspective. They argue, and I wouldn't agree, that we'll have to cut back on all those senseless 'consumption' programs like Medicare and Social Security (say insurance), and that as far as Medicaid is concerned, the recipients are mostly no-goods, anyway.
I argue that a default would mean we'd no longer be able to afford our costly military and its world empire. We actually can't afford it anyway. And, ultimately, we'd be much better off without it: all those things we "can't afford," like high quality education and Medicare for all, we'd easily be able to pay for--if we weren't spending almost three-quarters of a trillion yearly on "Defense" and its relatives, like Intelligence, Energy and "Homeland" Security.
And we'd be freer, too. No longer would our police forces try to emulate (and get funds from) the military, for things like tanks and armored cars. No longer would the military be so sacrosanct. And no longer would the rest of us be treated as if we were potential terror suspects.
However, a default would be painful for everyone but bond and currency traders; for them it could create fortunes. A default would mean: the beginning of the end of American Empire. Bankruptcy caused the "Fall of Rome."
Monday, July 11, 2011
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Cuomo & Obama Both Betray Us
Governor Cuomo asked, how do we protect New Yorkers who are vulnerable to abuse. It occurred to me that one of his apparent decisions would make many New Yorkers vulnerable to an ultimate abuse: allowing big corporations to put their drinking water at risk, polluted by natural gas fracturing (fracking).
Now, why would he do that?
Frackers have a lot of money to spend on politics, on lobbying and campaign funds. Vulnerable New Yorkers do not. Most of western New York will be put at risk and Cuomo's decision will make it impossible for them to protect themselves. Here's why.
By the very nature of fracking--horizontal drilling--frackers can do damage to their neighbors for miles around, even if they only buy a few acres in which to place their well-head, or, they find one agreeable landowner, who sells them drilling rights. Then all the neighbors' wells can be polluted, either by the secret toxic cocktails used in fracking, or by the release of gas, which can percolate upwards into their water sources. And, of course, while the fracker, and possibly the landowner, can profit, everybody else potentially loses.
It's all about money.
If the government does not protect those vulnerable New Yorkers, there is no way they can protect themselves--unless they vote overwhelmingly against any politician, including Governor, who acquiesces in such palpable injustice, such obvious obeisance to BIG MONEY.
In Washington, Obama is now offering Republicans the enticement of substantial cuts to Social Security and Medicare, in return for closing loopholes allowing multi-millionaires and billionaires to pay lower tax rates than anyone else. Yes, you read that right: cuts to Medicare and Social Security. This is after the special election in New York's 26th Congressional District, a very Republican District, where Kathy Hochul, the Democrat won by opposing Republican plans to cut Medicare. Further, national polls show super-majorities oppose cuts to either Social Security or Medicare; even a majority of Republicans are opposed.
Why does Obama do this, i.e. hand away the store before the bargaining begins?
It's about money, and maybe character. Obama is continually trying to "split the difference" between outrageous GOP proposals and his own agenda; so the more outrageous Republicans become, the more he buys into their agenda, not his own. It's also about money, simply because multi-millionaires and billionaires have it--lots of it--and since so much of it is discretionary (i.e. surplus beyond their most extravagant dreams), they can spend it on--politics. Obama apparently believes he has to get his "fair share" of that money, or at least deny it to his opponents.
Does Obama really think voters will support him if he sells out?
Who's really in charge? If Obama gets a few symbolic loopholes plugged, in return for his proffered entitlement cuts (likely), only Republicans and our contemporary Roman Senators will gain. They may have already won.
Now, why would he do that?
Frackers have a lot of money to spend on politics, on lobbying and campaign funds. Vulnerable New Yorkers do not. Most of western New York will be put at risk and Cuomo's decision will make it impossible for them to protect themselves. Here's why.
By the very nature of fracking--horizontal drilling--frackers can do damage to their neighbors for miles around, even if they only buy a few acres in which to place their well-head, or, they find one agreeable landowner, who sells them drilling rights. Then all the neighbors' wells can be polluted, either by the secret toxic cocktails used in fracking, or by the release of gas, which can percolate upwards into their water sources. And, of course, while the fracker, and possibly the landowner, can profit, everybody else potentially loses.
It's all about money.
If the government does not protect those vulnerable New Yorkers, there is no way they can protect themselves--unless they vote overwhelmingly against any politician, including Governor, who acquiesces in such palpable injustice, such obvious obeisance to BIG MONEY.
In Washington, Obama is now offering Republicans the enticement of substantial cuts to Social Security and Medicare, in return for closing loopholes allowing multi-millionaires and billionaires to pay lower tax rates than anyone else. Yes, you read that right: cuts to Medicare and Social Security. This is after the special election in New York's 26th Congressional District, a very Republican District, where Kathy Hochul, the Democrat won by opposing Republican plans to cut Medicare. Further, national polls show super-majorities oppose cuts to either Social Security or Medicare; even a majority of Republicans are opposed.
Why does Obama do this, i.e. hand away the store before the bargaining begins?
It's about money, and maybe character. Obama is continually trying to "split the difference" between outrageous GOP proposals and his own agenda; so the more outrageous Republicans become, the more he buys into their agenda, not his own. It's also about money, simply because multi-millionaires and billionaires have it--lots of it--and since so much of it is discretionary (i.e. surplus beyond their most extravagant dreams), they can spend it on--politics. Obama apparently believes he has to get his "fair share" of that money, or at least deny it to his opponents.
Does Obama really think voters will support him if he sells out?
Who's really in charge? If Obama gets a few symbolic loopholes plugged, in return for his proffered entitlement cuts (likely), only Republicans and our contemporary Roman Senators will gain. They may have already won.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Short-term Profits, Long-term Disaster
"He plants trees to benefit another generation," quoted by Cicero.
American corporations don't think like this. At most, they plan ahead for the next quarter, or the next year. Speculators and large Wall Street firms gamble to exploit people's misfortunes, they don't plan ahead to help others (only themselves).
The issue of fracking is illustrative of how this works. Natural gas producers are flocking to fracking, because there appears to be an abundance of gas in a large number of enormous shale deposits deep in the earth. However, fracking requires two things that make it potentially damaging to huge numbers of people. One landowner could sell drilling rights on his land to a drilling company, but the company, after drilling down about a mile, turns the drill bit horizontal, so one surface well could have impact on people for miles around, even if all of them oppose drilling under all circumstances.
And what is the impact?
Once the wells are drilled, both vertically and horizontally, the producer pumps in a toxic stew at high pressure to fracture (hence, to frack) the shale formation in which the gas has been trapped. The drillers claim there is no danger from the toxics--they pump them out again--but no one can guarantee they won't end up in our drinking water, either from natural upward flow, or from unintended spills. This is a short-term venture that could spoil a long-term resource that is not only in short supply, it's essential to life. Many civilizations have foundered when they destroyed, or lost, their water supply. The Mughal city of Fatehpur Sikri was abandoned shortly after it was completed; it had too little water. Mayan cities disappeared for the same reason. The Romans piped water in North Africa from the southern mountains: Islamic extremists destroyed them and with the aqueducts the agricultural resources of the whole region.
Fracking oil companies act like these ancient doomed civilizations: short-term thinking only, in pursuit profits.
All this is to say: business will pursue fracking because they can make short-term profits and either: 1) they believe all the complaints about adverse effects are wrong, or 2) they're betting they'll do no damage, or 3) any damage they do won't appear until they've extracted their profits and gotten out.
In New York State, frackers have been pouring money into the legislature to prevent a moratorium, or to limit its duration. Yet, the Marcellus shale region undergirds almost all the water resources needed by New York City in its extensive reservoir system. If natural gas, or worse, the frackers' injection fluids pollute those reservoirs, New York, our financial and cultural capital, might have to be abandoned like Fatehpur Sikri, or those Mayan cities. This is just plain stupid; especially since frack wells don't last as long as conventional ones.
Instead of 'do no harm,' modern corporations appear to believe in 'do harm' if there's profit in it.
American corporations don't think like this. At most, they plan ahead for the next quarter, or the next year. Speculators and large Wall Street firms gamble to exploit people's misfortunes, they don't plan ahead to help others (only themselves).
The issue of fracking is illustrative of how this works. Natural gas producers are flocking to fracking, because there appears to be an abundance of gas in a large number of enormous shale deposits deep in the earth. However, fracking requires two things that make it potentially damaging to huge numbers of people. One landowner could sell drilling rights on his land to a drilling company, but the company, after drilling down about a mile, turns the drill bit horizontal, so one surface well could have impact on people for miles around, even if all of them oppose drilling under all circumstances.
And what is the impact?
Once the wells are drilled, both vertically and horizontally, the producer pumps in a toxic stew at high pressure to fracture (hence, to frack) the shale formation in which the gas has been trapped. The drillers claim there is no danger from the toxics--they pump them out again--but no one can guarantee they won't end up in our drinking water, either from natural upward flow, or from unintended spills. This is a short-term venture that could spoil a long-term resource that is not only in short supply, it's essential to life. Many civilizations have foundered when they destroyed, or lost, their water supply. The Mughal city of Fatehpur Sikri was abandoned shortly after it was completed; it had too little water. Mayan cities disappeared for the same reason. The Romans piped water in North Africa from the southern mountains: Islamic extremists destroyed them and with the aqueducts the agricultural resources of the whole region.
Fracking oil companies act like these ancient doomed civilizations: short-term thinking only, in pursuit profits.
All this is to say: business will pursue fracking because they can make short-term profits and either: 1) they believe all the complaints about adverse effects are wrong, or 2) they're betting they'll do no damage, or 3) any damage they do won't appear until they've extracted their profits and gotten out.
In New York State, frackers have been pouring money into the legislature to prevent a moratorium, or to limit its duration. Yet, the Marcellus shale region undergirds almost all the water resources needed by New York City in its extensive reservoir system. If natural gas, or worse, the frackers' injection fluids pollute those reservoirs, New York, our financial and cultural capital, might have to be abandoned like Fatehpur Sikri, or those Mayan cities. This is just plain stupid; especially since frack wells don't last as long as conventional ones.
Instead of 'do no harm,' modern corporations appear to believe in 'do harm' if there's profit in it.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Nowhere Near Enough
Thirty-three thousand over more than two years; ten thousand this year. When you consider the numbers of troops involved (about 100,000) that Obama proposes is certainly not a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan--and yet it's more than the "military wanted."
More than "the military wanted." Do you get it? Barack Obama is not Commander in Chief: David Petraeus is. He set out the "options," and the only gesture made towards popular opinion, especially towards Obama's 2008 supporters, is that Barack chooses the "option" that draws down the troops a little faster than the military would like. Maybe even that takes courage, given how dominant the military has become. The President was elected on a groundswell of get-us-out sentiment vis a vis Iraq, and secondarily, Afghanistan. Obama's main focus re Afghanistan was about stopping al Qaeda.
In his speech, Obama made no implied criticism of spending $2 billion a week on sustaining the Afghan war and the corrupt government we put into power there. Yet, he proposes only a 10% cut in the number of troops, even if Obama said the right things about rebuilding America, instead of some foreign country. We'll still be spending about $1.8 billion per week on this senseless war. Meanwhile, honeyed demands rise for cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, to pay for the deficits incurred by our imperial overreach.
What do we get out of the Afghan war? Are we safer? Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan not Afghanistan, The Afghan government is almost mythically corrupt. Our man, President Karzai, keeps on making noises about not wanting us there: if he honestly said what he wanted--continued American presence so that he could continue to rip us off--Afghans and Americans would both be dismayed. Karzai is dependent on our largesse, not just because it enriches him, but because it gives him extraordinary means to pay off his followers.
The economy of Afghanistan appears to be largely dependent upon American/NATO aid and opium sales, and it's still one of the poorest nations on the planet.
More and more Americans are agreeing that we shouldn't be going into debt to "develop" or pacify Afghanistan, when we don't have enough money for our own schools, or our retirees.
Obama's decision is clearly too little, too slow and too obeisant to his military overlords, who don't mind if they impoverish and then bankrupt the rest of us.
Would even Ron Paul, or Russ Feingold do any better if either were President? Or would the military overawe them, too? It seems likely, but then neither would be able to get elected, anyway.
What has been emerging since Reagan, at least, is a military that is NOT really subject to civilian control--although it still keeps up appearances. While the generals don't interfere with domestic policy, they have gained a stranglehold on military policy/foreign policy. They will drive the American empire either to Armageddon, or more likely, to bankruptcy.
More than "the military wanted." Do you get it? Barack Obama is not Commander in Chief: David Petraeus is. He set out the "options," and the only gesture made towards popular opinion, especially towards Obama's 2008 supporters, is that Barack chooses the "option" that draws down the troops a little faster than the military would like. Maybe even that takes courage, given how dominant the military has become. The President was elected on a groundswell of get-us-out sentiment vis a vis Iraq, and secondarily, Afghanistan. Obama's main focus re Afghanistan was about stopping al Qaeda.
In his speech, Obama made no implied criticism of spending $2 billion a week on sustaining the Afghan war and the corrupt government we put into power there. Yet, he proposes only a 10% cut in the number of troops, even if Obama said the right things about rebuilding America, instead of some foreign country. We'll still be spending about $1.8 billion per week on this senseless war. Meanwhile, honeyed demands rise for cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, to pay for the deficits incurred by our imperial overreach.
What do we get out of the Afghan war? Are we safer? Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan not Afghanistan, The Afghan government is almost mythically corrupt. Our man, President Karzai, keeps on making noises about not wanting us there: if he honestly said what he wanted--continued American presence so that he could continue to rip us off--Afghans and Americans would both be dismayed. Karzai is dependent on our largesse, not just because it enriches him, but because it gives him extraordinary means to pay off his followers.
The economy of Afghanistan appears to be largely dependent upon American/NATO aid and opium sales, and it's still one of the poorest nations on the planet.
More and more Americans are agreeing that we shouldn't be going into debt to "develop" or pacify Afghanistan, when we don't have enough money for our own schools, or our retirees.
Obama's decision is clearly too little, too slow and too obeisant to his military overlords, who don't mind if they impoverish and then bankrupt the rest of us.
Would even Ron Paul, or Russ Feingold do any better if either were President? Or would the military overawe them, too? It seems likely, but then neither would be able to get elected, anyway.
What has been emerging since Reagan, at least, is a military that is NOT really subject to civilian control--although it still keeps up appearances. While the generals don't interfere with domestic policy, they have gained a stranglehold on military policy/foreign policy. They will drive the American empire either to Armageddon, or more likely, to bankruptcy.
Monday, June 20, 2011
All Temples Fall
The military has all but taken over war policy; it is determined to preserve American dominance, regardless. The cost of empire is now finally becoming plain: Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and much more.
Nations that have never been empires don't spend more than half their discretionary budgets on "Defense." Instead, they spend to make their people better off. Does spending three-quarters of a trillion dollars a year on war-making give Americans better lives? It's spent all over the world by our generals, trying to maintain dominance. Germany learned through bitter defeat, but Germany, today has universal healthcare and lower unemployment than they had before the Great Recession; they aren't spending their substance on foreign wars.
Americans spend $750+ billions on the most deadly killing machine the planet has ever seen: our military. So, they bomb Afghanistan. Are we better off? We help in bombing Libya, while our generals work hard to persuade Afghans and Iraqis that American troops should stay in their countries indefinitely, even if they do bomb the occasional wedding procession, or informal gathering.
Why does Karzai, originally American-sponsored, want Americans to stay? He wants Americans because he can siphon billions off us, for him, for his family, for his cronies, for his allies bought and paid for. Can he really believe that more years of war are better for his people than a settlement? The Taliban has a central demand, which, for nationalists makes sense: any settlement must require that US and NATO forces leave. Our negotiators refuse to discuss withdrawal, but demand the Taliban submit to "the constitution," which was written with American guidance. Why not negotiate when to leave, and what to get in return and negotiate how to work under the present constitution?
American generals don't want to leave Afghanistan: it's a moneymaker, as well as an opportunity for promotion, power and cushy jobs after retirement. The same goes for Iraq, and for any of the 120+ countries in which we have a presence.
Wall Street promotes empire, too, because of the money it can make from war, and so does the media. Until recently, no one cared whether we had to go into hock to maintain "full-spectrum dominance."
At least, the "budget warriors" are beginning to realize: useless wars cost too much. Who is hurt by empire? Anyone affected by all the cuts to programs aiding them, or the taxes they have to pay for useless wars. Few in power stand up to the generals and say "No!"
But the generals are determined: they desperately hold on; they don't care if America can't afford it. They'll bankrupt and impoverish us to get their way.
All temples fall," Elizabeth Cunningham sings. All empires do, too. Elizabeth will sing this song when she promotes her upcoming Red-robed Priestess the last of her Maeve Chronicles, set during Boudicca's rebellion against Rome. But it's happening now with the American Empire.
Monday, June 13, 2011
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
The above was written by Pastor Niemoller protesting the Nazis after millions of Jews were gassed and he was nearly executed. Now, similar things are beginning to happen, a step at a time, here in the US and abroad, under US aegis. First, foreigners are detained arbitrarily, then American citizens, even tortured, held for years with no charges, held in solitary, force-fed if they protest their illegal imprisonment with hunger strikes. It's not only Bradley Manning and Abdullah al Kidd, but hundreds of others.
While we may sign petitions, and while some protest in the streets, the screws only get tighter: we are marching rapidly towards a police state. What's scary is that Obama's election appears to have accelerated the process, but his next electoral opponent would likely be even worse.
Guantanamo is not closed, Bagram has expanded rapidly, "super-max"-security prisons proliferate in the US, routine solitary confinement goes viral, while ordinary citizens are subjected to intrusive searches in airports. Furthermore, Abdullah al Kidd, the Supreme Court has ruled, cannot sue former US-AG John Ashcroft for wrongful detention, and as Daniel Ellsberg (of Pentagon Papers fame) has noted, now everything Nixon did to him (like breaking into his psychiatrist's office for blackmail material) is now legal.
The creep of surveillance in this supposedly democratic nation has reached the point in which no one is safe and virtually anyone can be watched. Given our more highly developed communications technology, surveillance is also easier.
The government has been given the legal legs through the just renewed Patriot Act to continue and expand its Big Brother activity, but even private corporations like Progressive Insurance are pushing new versions of surveillance: Progressive will discount rates for customers who submit to electronic monitoring of their "driving habits." Ironic name, right? The states also get into the business: a friend was mailed a speeding ticket, after Easy-Pass monitored his speed from Great Barrington to Boston on the Mass Pike!
The protest against full body scanners (also referred to as 'porno-scanners') has pretty much died down. Either you go through them at the airport, or a TSA officer will feel you up--all for "security" reasons.
Why do Americans passively allow these outrages? As Ben Franklin noted: "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY."
The American Empire, like the Roman one, has jettisoned both--even for our equivalent of Roman Senators, like Congressman Weiner and ex-Governor Spitzer.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
The above was written by Pastor Niemoller protesting the Nazis after millions of Jews were gassed and he was nearly executed. Now, similar things are beginning to happen, a step at a time, here in the US and abroad, under US aegis. First, foreigners are detained arbitrarily, then American citizens, even tortured, held for years with no charges, held in solitary, force-fed if they protest their illegal imprisonment with hunger strikes. It's not only Bradley Manning and Abdullah al Kidd, but hundreds of others.
While we may sign petitions, and while some protest in the streets, the screws only get tighter: we are marching rapidly towards a police state. What's scary is that Obama's election appears to have accelerated the process, but his next electoral opponent would likely be even worse.
Guantanamo is not closed, Bagram has expanded rapidly, "super-max"-security prisons proliferate in the US, routine solitary confinement goes viral, while ordinary citizens are subjected to intrusive searches in airports. Furthermore, Abdullah al Kidd, the Supreme Court has ruled, cannot sue former US-AG John Ashcroft for wrongful detention, and as Daniel Ellsberg (of Pentagon Papers fame) has noted, now everything Nixon did to him (like breaking into his psychiatrist's office for blackmail material) is now legal.
The creep of surveillance in this supposedly democratic nation has reached the point in which no one is safe and virtually anyone can be watched. Given our more highly developed communications technology, surveillance is also easier.
The government has been given the legal legs through the just renewed Patriot Act to continue and expand its Big Brother activity, but even private corporations like Progressive Insurance are pushing new versions of surveillance: Progressive will discount rates for customers who submit to electronic monitoring of their "driving habits." Ironic name, right? The states also get into the business: a friend was mailed a speeding ticket, after Easy-Pass monitored his speed from Great Barrington to Boston on the Mass Pike!
The protest against full body scanners (also referred to as 'porno-scanners') has pretty much died down. Either you go through them at the airport, or a TSA officer will feel you up--all for "security" reasons.
Why do Americans passively allow these outrages? As Ben Franklin noted: "Those who would give up ESSENTIAL LIBERTY to purchase a little TEMPORARY SAFETY, deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY."
The American Empire, like the Roman one, has jettisoned both--even for our equivalent of Roman Senators, like Congressman Weiner and ex-Governor Spitzer.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Our Debt Trap
The "new" economy: workers have no rights, and are paid a few dollars over minimum wage. They have to pay for an American lifestyle: a decent rental, at very least, a car, insurance and gas, cable and phone, electricity, medical care and food, going up almost as fast as gas.
I have friends who are barely making it, working full time; they're good at what they do, highly valued by their employers, yet they're paid too little to afford the minimal American lifestyle.
Prices go up, although Bernanke tells us we don't have meaningful inflation, that deflation is the danger. Deflation is a danger, not just in the housing market, where prices are marching downward, but in the labor market. Workers are paid less and less, because everything, including rent, goes up--except their wages. The result is that people have less and less money to spend; they economize. In the country, people only drive to the store when they have multiple tasks; gas costs too much for multiple shopping trips, so there is less money as demand for goods and services.
Meanwhile, corporations are sitting on piles of cash, much of it from foreign earnings, and from squeezing more work out of fewer workers. The rise in unemployment (from 8.8% to 9.1%) is driven by labor deflation, i.e. people don't have enough money to maintain the demand necessary for businesses (small and large) to hire more workers.
No tax cuts for corporations and wealthy investors will stimulate job creation when there is flagging demand for the goods and services those businesses sell. No lay offs of public employees (Federal, state and local) is going to create more jobs; the opposite is true; layoffs drive demand downward.
Two policies would create jobs: resolving the housing collapse by allowing people to stay in their homes and renegotiating mortgages based on their homes' current value, and/or subsidizing housing payments. And, government creating needed jobs directly. Our crumbling infrastructure alone indicates that WPA-type jobs would be positive investments in the nation's future. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, but only the Federal government can make a political decision to invest in jobs.
Instead, governments slash jobs and spending, suddenly reducing money available for goods and services. The result is a debt trap. Fewer jobs mean less money being spent. This results in lower tax revenue and higher expenditures on services to the unemployed, which then forces cuts of even more jobs. This self-reinforcing deflation, is a debt trap. Deficits will rise as expenditures are cut; debt will increase as unemployment rises and as people spend less. That's not a paradox, it's how things work.
Rome was caught in a debt trap in the 4th century--and never got out of it. Keynes and FDR found a way out in the 1930's. Why don't we?
I have friends who are barely making it, working full time; they're good at what they do, highly valued by their employers, yet they're paid too little to afford the minimal American lifestyle.
Prices go up, although Bernanke tells us we don't have meaningful inflation, that deflation is the danger. Deflation is a danger, not just in the housing market, where prices are marching downward, but in the labor market. Workers are paid less and less, because everything, including rent, goes up--except their wages. The result is that people have less and less money to spend; they economize. In the country, people only drive to the store when they have multiple tasks; gas costs too much for multiple shopping trips, so there is less money as demand for goods and services.
Meanwhile, corporations are sitting on piles of cash, much of it from foreign earnings, and from squeezing more work out of fewer workers. The rise in unemployment (from 8.8% to 9.1%) is driven by labor deflation, i.e. people don't have enough money to maintain the demand necessary for businesses (small and large) to hire more workers.
No tax cuts for corporations and wealthy investors will stimulate job creation when there is flagging demand for the goods and services those businesses sell. No lay offs of public employees (Federal, state and local) is going to create more jobs; the opposite is true; layoffs drive demand downward.
Two policies would create jobs: resolving the housing collapse by allowing people to stay in their homes and renegotiating mortgages based on their homes' current value, and/or subsidizing housing payments. And, government creating needed jobs directly. Our crumbling infrastructure alone indicates that WPA-type jobs would be positive investments in the nation's future. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, but only the Federal government can make a political decision to invest in jobs.
Instead, governments slash jobs and spending, suddenly reducing money available for goods and services. The result is a debt trap. Fewer jobs mean less money being spent. This results in lower tax revenue and higher expenditures on services to the unemployed, which then forces cuts of even more jobs. This self-reinforcing deflation, is a debt trap. Deficits will rise as expenditures are cut; debt will increase as unemployment rises and as people spend less. That's not a paradox, it's how things work.
Rome was caught in a debt trap in the 4th century--and never got out of it. Keynes and FDR found a way out in the 1930's. Why don't we?
Saturday, June 4, 2011
What's Wrong with GOP's Hensarling?
Texas Congressman (R) Jeb Hensarling proclaimed: "one of the biggest impediments to job creation today…is a lack of confidence in the future." He blamed this on "an administration where regulators have gone wild…threatening the largest single tax increase in America’s history and…[it] doesn’t take seriously the debt that is threatening our job creators.” [NYT 6/4/11]
What's wrong with this picture? Regulators have gone wild? Polluters went wild under Bush, speculators went wild; banks went wild, causing the recession. The "tax increase" Hensarling mentions, is the expiration of Bush's unfunded top-rate tax cuts. Tax rates for millionaires are lower now than at any time since 1929 and income inequality is higher.
Who are "job creators?" People who put up the money? Neither large corporations nor entrepreneurs are hiring. This is because employers do not "create" jobs. In order for hiring to happen, there has to be demand (or its potential) for goods or services in the economy (demand is not created by the employer), and there have to be people with the requisite skills to fill the jobs needed (provided by good schools). Entrepreneurs take advantage of many things they don't create: people, skills, demand, a legal system, and basic security.
Imbedded in that legal system are regulations, which establish a predictable marketplace. They also force businesses to compensate for damages to society. Polluters, for example, either pay the costs their pollution caused to society, or society has to pay it instead: in poorer health, a major cost. Why should a polluter profit from the lung cancer he causes in a hundred victims downwind?
As for debt: the greatest part of the debt Republicans like Hensarling rail about was caused by: two Bush tax-cuts, two unfunded wars and an unfunded mandate added to Medicare (Part D) by Bush and his Republican Congress. Then, to the debt was added the Great Recession caused by the lack of regulation which culminated with Bush, but had been building since Carter.
In recessions, governments take in less (in revenue) but have to spend more (for things like unemployment payments and Food Stamps), unless they're going to revert to a Dickensian age when people starved in the streets. Our experience in the Depression demonstrated that government programs (contrary to conservative dogma) created jobs, value and demand, and started the US climb out of the Depression--not completed until the massive deficit spending necessary to wage WWII.
Cutting spending does not create jobs, as evidenced by the rise in unemployed state and federal workers here, and renewed recession in budget-cutting UK. But it does increase inequality, and therefore the power of the extremely wealthy, our equivalent of the Senators of Fifth Century Rome.
Those Senators did much the same thing, weakening Rome, laying the stage for its fall, in 476.
What's wrong with this picture? Regulators have gone wild? Polluters went wild under Bush, speculators went wild; banks went wild, causing the recession. The "tax increase" Hensarling mentions, is the expiration of Bush's unfunded top-rate tax cuts. Tax rates for millionaires are lower now than at any time since 1929 and income inequality is higher.
Who are "job creators?" People who put up the money? Neither large corporations nor entrepreneurs are hiring. This is because employers do not "create" jobs. In order for hiring to happen, there has to be demand (or its potential) for goods or services in the economy (demand is not created by the employer), and there have to be people with the requisite skills to fill the jobs needed (provided by good schools). Entrepreneurs take advantage of many things they don't create: people, skills, demand, a legal system, and basic security.
Imbedded in that legal system are regulations, which establish a predictable marketplace. They also force businesses to compensate for damages to society. Polluters, for example, either pay the costs their pollution caused to society, or society has to pay it instead: in poorer health, a major cost. Why should a polluter profit from the lung cancer he causes in a hundred victims downwind?
As for debt: the greatest part of the debt Republicans like Hensarling rail about was caused by: two Bush tax-cuts, two unfunded wars and an unfunded mandate added to Medicare (Part D) by Bush and his Republican Congress. Then, to the debt was added the Great Recession caused by the lack of regulation which culminated with Bush, but had been building since Carter.
In recessions, governments take in less (in revenue) but have to spend more (for things like unemployment payments and Food Stamps), unless they're going to revert to a Dickensian age when people starved in the streets. Our experience in the Depression demonstrated that government programs (contrary to conservative dogma) created jobs, value and demand, and started the US climb out of the Depression--not completed until the massive deficit spending necessary to wage WWII.
Cutting spending does not create jobs, as evidenced by the rise in unemployed state and federal workers here, and renewed recession in budget-cutting UK. But it does increase inequality, and therefore the power of the extremely wealthy, our equivalent of the Senators of Fifth Century Rome.
Those Senators did much the same thing, weakening Rome, laying the stage for its fall, in 476.
Friday, June 3, 2011
We Won't Pay!
The Portuguese Communist Party is campaigning against the Euro-IMF bailout; their slogan: "We won't pay!"
It makes sense in the US, too. Who caused the global recession, and what is causing the world economy to lean towards a renewal of it? The banks speculated and committed fraud on all of us, and got away with it--at our expense. The American economy is limping towards a "double-dip" in part because of all the government cutbacks (federal, state and local). It's also because jobs in the private sector are not returning; there was too little stimulus--except for the trillions thrown at Wall Street.
In Greece, Ireland and Portugal, the bankers demand huge cutbacks to services, pensions, any public expenditure, but it was the bankers who caused the crisis, yet the banks are not being asked to pay for it. The bailouts will probably doom those countries to continued recession; their governments won't be allowed to re-stimulate their economies.
The US may be doomed as well, by political shortsightedness, greed, ideological blindness and the overweening power of the Selfish Class, our contemporary Roman Senators.
When you have persistent unemployment rates (officially now 9.1% and unofficially 16-18%), with wages flat and workers scared, you are not going to have expansive demand. Without growing demand, corporations are not going to hire, whether their taxes are raised or lowered. Corporations have been sitting on piles of money and neither hiring, nor investing.
Ordinary people have been left in the lurch. Any commitment on the part of the Obama administration to stimulate hiring, or to aid the housing market by mortgage reform has been abandoned in the face of Republican demands. Impose the same kind of draconian cuts and restructuring as the IMF: huge cuts in services, pensions (like Social Security and Medicare) and jobs, to pay for the debts incurred by the finance nightmare, two unfunded wars and a series of unfunded tax cuts that have enriched a tiny 1% of the nation.
We are told that the US is broke; it's not. The problem is that the wealthy and the corporations are looting the nation--as they looted Portugal and Greece--and they have the political clout (and paid media support) to persuade the political elite, that massive cutbacks are necessary--on others' backs. They even insist, via Republicans like Ryan, that they are over-taxed; the opposite is true.
Many corporations avoid paying any taxes, despite huge profits; many wealthy find enough loopholes, too, to reduce their already low, 33% top tax rate. In the booming 50's, the top rate was 91%, and it was still 70% in the prosperous 1960's.
Shout: "Hell no! We won't pay!" The people and corporations who created this mess should pay for it. Governments should create jobs with their money. To accept the cutbacks is to reinforce the takeover by our Roman Senators. We'll retreat to Fifth Century society made up of Senators and serfs.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Who Controls This "Democracy"?
Polls show that Americans want to preserve Medicare; they favor raising taxes on the "rich" and corporations, they want us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and at least a bare majority prefer cutting Defense spending to control the budget.
Yet pundits, experts, politicians and decision-makers all propose the opposite: cut taxes on the wealthy, revamp or cut Medicare, urge Iraqis to keep American troops after 2012, and minimize any withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Among the in-crowd in Washington and the major media markets, the burning question of the day is: how to cut the deficit and the debt. Beyond the beltway, where most people live, the deficit isn't the problem: it's jobs.
Nine percent unemployment implies 91% employed, so most are still working--non-workers are not counted. Given declining demand driven by the double-dip housing market and the fall in demand for workers, a large proportion of those employed fear lay-offs and therefore put up with speed-ups, increased workloads, longer hours and stagnant wages. Further, unions are so weak they can't even keep their members' wages abreast of escalating costs of living.
But Republicans ignore the jobs issue, after using it to gain power in Congress in 2010: everyone they know is doing pretty well. Just ignore all that whining about jobs. Eliminate all social programs like Medicare, instead.
Obama is only marginally better.
The debate on alternative budgets demonstrates how skewed our public dialogue has become. It leaves out the only proposed budget to truly cut the deficit, reduce the debt and create jobs. Why is GOP Ryan's budget proposal considered the only serious alternative to Obama's? It would replace Medicare with vouchers and block grants for Medicaid, and wouldn't significantly cut deficits; it might actually raise them, because of Ryan's tax cuts for the wealthy. Yet, it's considered serious. Obama's budget freezes Federal pay, cuts Food stamps, finds savings in Medicare and Medicaid cut-backs and greater efficiencies in health care, and nominally cuts Defense. Obama doesn't raise taxes on the wealthy until after 2012, and he doesn't significantly cut the deficit, either.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus's budget raises income taxes and estate taxes for the top 1% of earners, on high-earners' payroll taxes and corporate taxes, while capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. It cuts healthcare costs through negotiating Medicare pharmaceutical prices, better management and by adding a public option. It cuts defense by bringing the troops home and shifting defense priorities. It also invests $1.66 trillion in job creation, infrastructure and alternative energy. Progressives claim they'd achieve a budget surplus of $30.7 billion by 2021.
So, why isn't it considered a "serious" alternative? Oh, it's only what the people want, but the public "debate" doesn't include what people want, only what the elite wants. They want to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense, like the Roman Senators in the Fifth Century. If they succeed, we'll have a declining empire, mass impoverishment and no democracy.
Yet pundits, experts, politicians and decision-makers all propose the opposite: cut taxes on the wealthy, revamp or cut Medicare, urge Iraqis to keep American troops after 2012, and minimize any withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Among the in-crowd in Washington and the major media markets, the burning question of the day is: how to cut the deficit and the debt. Beyond the beltway, where most people live, the deficit isn't the problem: it's jobs.
Nine percent unemployment implies 91% employed, so most are still working--non-workers are not counted. Given declining demand driven by the double-dip housing market and the fall in demand for workers, a large proportion of those employed fear lay-offs and therefore put up with speed-ups, increased workloads, longer hours and stagnant wages. Further, unions are so weak they can't even keep their members' wages abreast of escalating costs of living.
But Republicans ignore the jobs issue, after using it to gain power in Congress in 2010: everyone they know is doing pretty well. Just ignore all that whining about jobs. Eliminate all social programs like Medicare, instead.
Obama is only marginally better.
The debate on alternative budgets demonstrates how skewed our public dialogue has become. It leaves out the only proposed budget to truly cut the deficit, reduce the debt and create jobs. Why is GOP Ryan's budget proposal considered the only serious alternative to Obama's? It would replace Medicare with vouchers and block grants for Medicaid, and wouldn't significantly cut deficits; it might actually raise them, because of Ryan's tax cuts for the wealthy. Yet, it's considered serious. Obama's budget freezes Federal pay, cuts Food stamps, finds savings in Medicare and Medicaid cut-backs and greater efficiencies in health care, and nominally cuts Defense. Obama doesn't raise taxes on the wealthy until after 2012, and he doesn't significantly cut the deficit, either.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus's budget raises income taxes and estate taxes for the top 1% of earners, on high-earners' payroll taxes and corporate taxes, while capital gains are taxed as ordinary income. It cuts healthcare costs through negotiating Medicare pharmaceutical prices, better management and by adding a public option. It cuts defense by bringing the troops home and shifting defense priorities. It also invests $1.66 trillion in job creation, infrastructure and alternative energy. Progressives claim they'd achieve a budget surplus of $30.7 billion by 2021.
So, why isn't it considered a "serious" alternative? Oh, it's only what the people want, but the public "debate" doesn't include what people want, only what the elite wants. They want to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense, like the Roman Senators in the Fifth Century. If they succeed, we'll have a declining empire, mass impoverishment and no democracy.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
The World Map: Moral Decline of Empire
Amnesty's map is gray, so much of it, gray because people are arbitrarily imprisoned, tortured, and/or dissenters are violently repressed. There are a few white spots; France, Germany, Spain. Ironically, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary. And then there's Canada, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Australia, New Zealand.
The US is gray, as is the UK, China, India, Russia and South Africa, most of Africa, Asia and more than half of Latin America. Yes, America is not an exceptional island of humanity and civil liberties. Bolivia is, and so is Uruguay.
Two years after Obama pledged to close Guantanamo, it's still open for business, still holding people without charges and without justification. And there are still reports of abusive treatment of prisoners. June 3, 2009, Muhammad Ahmad Abdallah Salih succeeded in committing suicide, somehow, despite being on a suicide watch: he and five others had been force-fed through their noses for years.
And then, of course, there is Bradley Manning, who has been confined for almost a year now, has been held in solitary most of that time, with extreme isolation enforced (not even allowed to exercise in his cell, not even allowed clothes some of the time), yet he is still not charged--with anything! Many torture specialists say isolation like this is worse than physical torture; it melts the mind.
Until this spring, we also sent some of our detainees to Mubarak, have him overtly torture for us. Thanks, Hosni! Still, when the Egyptian Spring happened, we reluctantly climbed on and threw Hosni under the bus.
So, the US, even under Barack Obama, is no oasis of humanity. Canada is; Costa Rica is; Chile is; even Paraguay is, but it almost looks, when you look at this gray map of the world, that only minor nations, ones without imperial or regional ambitions--with the exception of France and Germany--can any longer "afford" to honor human rights.
Was there a time when an American President could truthfully say, "We don't torture," "We don't detain people arbitrarily?" FDR could boast the first, but not the second (the Japanese-American detainment camps), but after WWII we could boast both, with the possible exception of Vietnam, until George W. But now, still, with Obama, champion of human rights and peace, both practices are even admitted. Obama has drawn a line: excluding most direct physical torture, including water-boarding, but the treatment of Manning is on his watch, and it's torture, too: for an American citizen who has yet to be charged with a crime!
Such is the cost of Empire. Americans, struggling now to dominate the world, (remember Full Spectrum Dominance?) are now so insecure we have to torture our own to insure our "security." We have to give up our rights and allow our leaders to imprison and torture us arbitrarily (oh, there are rules and regs about how to do it, but still it's arbitrary).
This is life in the American Empire, in its rapid decline.
The US is gray, as is the UK, China, India, Russia and South Africa, most of Africa, Asia and more than half of Latin America. Yes, America is not an exceptional island of humanity and civil liberties. Bolivia is, and so is Uruguay.
Two years after Obama pledged to close Guantanamo, it's still open for business, still holding people without charges and without justification. And there are still reports of abusive treatment of prisoners. June 3, 2009, Muhammad Ahmad Abdallah Salih succeeded in committing suicide, somehow, despite being on a suicide watch: he and five others had been force-fed through their noses for years.
And then, of course, there is Bradley Manning, who has been confined for almost a year now, has been held in solitary most of that time, with extreme isolation enforced (not even allowed to exercise in his cell, not even allowed clothes some of the time), yet he is still not charged--with anything! Many torture specialists say isolation like this is worse than physical torture; it melts the mind.
Until this spring, we also sent some of our detainees to Mubarak, have him overtly torture for us. Thanks, Hosni! Still, when the Egyptian Spring happened, we reluctantly climbed on and threw Hosni under the bus.
So, the US, even under Barack Obama, is no oasis of humanity. Canada is; Costa Rica is; Chile is; even Paraguay is, but it almost looks, when you look at this gray map of the world, that only minor nations, ones without imperial or regional ambitions--with the exception of France and Germany--can any longer "afford" to honor human rights.
Was there a time when an American President could truthfully say, "We don't torture," "We don't detain people arbitrarily?" FDR could boast the first, but not the second (the Japanese-American detainment camps), but after WWII we could boast both, with the possible exception of Vietnam, until George W. But now, still, with Obama, champion of human rights and peace, both practices are even admitted. Obama has drawn a line: excluding most direct physical torture, including water-boarding, but the treatment of Manning is on his watch, and it's torture, too: for an American citizen who has yet to be charged with a crime!
Such is the cost of Empire. Americans, struggling now to dominate the world, (remember Full Spectrum Dominance?) are now so insecure we have to torture our own to insure our "security." We have to give up our rights and allow our leaders to imprison and torture us arbitrarily (oh, there are rules and regs about how to do it, but still it's arbitrary).
This is life in the American Empire, in its rapid decline.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
The Predator Class
The Senators of the Late Roman Empire stole wealth from everyone: the peasants, the middle class, the Emperor and the army, by avoiding taxes, sheltering those who couldn't pay, then enslaving them, and engineering corrupt deals with the army and the government.
Our selfish class has escalated the plunder of the rest of us to an order of magnitude that makes Roman Senators look like petty criminals in comparison.
Fraud permeated the housing market that collapsed in 2007-8; it was endemic at every level. But, the profits and risk escalated with each additional layer of resold, insured, sliced, repackaged, resold "mortgage securities." And where did the original money come from, the funds that underlay this whole wobbly house of cards? Mortgage payments, an increasing number of which were either sub-prime or of questionable soundness, with their fraudulent enticements of low starter rates and escalating payments, no money down but higher and higher interest rates.
The money that underpinned the great mortgage bubble came from the poor, and working middle class. Through bank swindles on those loans, the people were tossed out of their homes and the banks were left holding huge numbers of foreclosed properties.
This wasn't a great deal for the banks, initially, but before the crash, it transferred billions of dollars from the poor and near poor to the very, very rich. In the bailouts, the government handed the banks billions more, so that even if they were left holding hundreds of thousands of homes they couldn't sell, they were able to resume their speculation and create huge profits, mostly out of thin air--and made-up money.
As for the people thrown out of their homes, in many cases for clearly fraudulent reasons, they had nowhere to go. So, the collapse of the housing market, and of the financial system, threw millions out of work. But the so-called stimulus that was supposed to promote job creation--the green jobs touted by candidate Obama--was much too small, due to political timidity, to do much more than keep employment from falling off a cliff. It stabilized unemployment at below 10%. Since, it has slowly crept down to 9% or slightly lower (not counting discouraged workers).
Meanwhile, the bailed-out banks are profiting hugely, in the still largely unregulated financial markets. Corporations are posting huge profits, too, but hiring is very slow: employers would rather squeeze as much as they can out of existing employees.
As if to underline their client status to the banks and corporations, Republicans consistently advocate cutting corporate and high-earner taxes, while bewailing the huge debts incurred from similar tax cuts they adopted previously, and from their unfunded wars. To make up the difference, they propose draconian cuts to entitlements (running surpluses, so far) and to all programs serving anyone not rich.
Debtors prison has already resurfaced: will Republicans try to legalize serfdom next?
Our selfish class has escalated the plunder of the rest of us to an order of magnitude that makes Roman Senators look like petty criminals in comparison.
Fraud permeated the housing market that collapsed in 2007-8; it was endemic at every level. But, the profits and risk escalated with each additional layer of resold, insured, sliced, repackaged, resold "mortgage securities." And where did the original money come from, the funds that underlay this whole wobbly house of cards? Mortgage payments, an increasing number of which were either sub-prime or of questionable soundness, with their fraudulent enticements of low starter rates and escalating payments, no money down but higher and higher interest rates.
The money that underpinned the great mortgage bubble came from the poor, and working middle class. Through bank swindles on those loans, the people were tossed out of their homes and the banks were left holding huge numbers of foreclosed properties.
This wasn't a great deal for the banks, initially, but before the crash, it transferred billions of dollars from the poor and near poor to the very, very rich. In the bailouts, the government handed the banks billions more, so that even if they were left holding hundreds of thousands of homes they couldn't sell, they were able to resume their speculation and create huge profits, mostly out of thin air--and made-up money.
As for the people thrown out of their homes, in many cases for clearly fraudulent reasons, they had nowhere to go. So, the collapse of the housing market, and of the financial system, threw millions out of work. But the so-called stimulus that was supposed to promote job creation--the green jobs touted by candidate Obama--was much too small, due to political timidity, to do much more than keep employment from falling off a cliff. It stabilized unemployment at below 10%. Since, it has slowly crept down to 9% or slightly lower (not counting discouraged workers).
Meanwhile, the bailed-out banks are profiting hugely, in the still largely unregulated financial markets. Corporations are posting huge profits, too, but hiring is very slow: employers would rather squeeze as much as they can out of existing employees.
As if to underline their client status to the banks and corporations, Republicans consistently advocate cutting corporate and high-earner taxes, while bewailing the huge debts incurred from similar tax cuts they adopted previously, and from their unfunded wars. To make up the difference, they propose draconian cuts to entitlements (running surpluses, so far) and to all programs serving anyone not rich.
Debtors prison has already resurfaced: will Republicans try to legalize serfdom next?
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Should Dems Compromise
Or Fight?
Republicans have thrown down the gauntlet: Ryan's proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher program, and Medicaid into a block grant essentially eliminates both popular programs. Earlier, Republicans forced the tax giveaway to millionaires by extending all Bush's tax cuts. Now, they seem to think that Obama and the Democrats will cave before their demands on the debt ceiling negotiations: for huge program cuts in any programs serving the poor, like food stamps, or the middle class, like the mortgage tax deduction, in order to cut taxes on the wealthy even more. In Texas, Republicans debate a major tax cut for yacht owners.
If the Republicans are intransigent, Obama and the Democrats should demonstrate that they attempted reasonable compromise, but Republicans refused, demanding only capitulation.
Ultimately, Republican sponsors, the financial firms and large corporations, will force the hardliners to blink: they don't want the US to default, either.
Democrats should not give up their principles, or let down their constituents, many of whom depend on governments for their livelihood or safety.
Where do these conservative ideas come from, which demand that Texas cut its budget by about a quarter ($23 billion), to meet its shortfall, at the expense of its children (and its future), while not raising taxes on corporations, or millionaires and billionaires by one cent--and cutting taxes on yachts? Even worse is the spectacle of Florida's Rick Scott, who simultaneously lowered "business" taxes by billions, to be paid for by corresponding billions of cuts in education and unemployment compensation.
In other words, to Republicans, people don't matter, unless they're worth millions or billions. Teachers are overpaid, they argue, and unemployment insurance just encourages laziness.
And what do corporations, millionaires and billionaires do with all this wealth for which they've avoided paying taxes? They speculate, or they buy more "property," or collect ancient coins, or gold bars. Corporations have used their profits to go private, by buying up their outstanding stocks at premium prices. Until this last quarter, they hardly spent any of their excess cash on "creating jobs," except in other parts of the world.
Kathy Hochul, a progressive Democrat, just won a special election for Congress in an upstate New York district that's about as Republican as Nebraska. She won nearly a majority, despite having three opponents, including a Tea Party candidate on the far right, a Republican who dutifully followed the party line on eliminating Medicare, and a Green candidate on the left.
Clearly, Newt was onto something when he backed away from Ryan's Medicare plan, but Republican hard-liners made him eat crow.
Maybe there's hope yet that the great muddled middle will understand that corporatists are not their friends: they represent what I've called "the selfish class" (on this website); supporting them will kill any possibility of democracy, or of a viable middle class. Their way will lead us to our own "476."
If the Republicans are intransigent, Obama and the Democrats should demonstrate that they attempted reasonable compromise, but Republicans refused, demanding only capitulation.
Ultimately, Republican sponsors, the financial firms and large corporations, will force the hardliners to blink: they don't want the US to default, either.
Democrats should not give up their principles, or let down their constituents, many of whom depend on governments for their livelihood or safety.
Where do these conservative ideas come from, which demand that Texas cut its budget by about a quarter ($23 billion), to meet its shortfall, at the expense of its children (and its future), while not raising taxes on corporations, or millionaires and billionaires by one cent--and cutting taxes on yachts? Even worse is the spectacle of Florida's Rick Scott, who simultaneously lowered "business" taxes by billions, to be paid for by corresponding billions of cuts in education and unemployment compensation.
In other words, to Republicans, people don't matter, unless they're worth millions or billions. Teachers are overpaid, they argue, and unemployment insurance just encourages laziness.
And what do corporations, millionaires and billionaires do with all this wealth for which they've avoided paying taxes? They speculate, or they buy more "property," or collect ancient coins, or gold bars. Corporations have used their profits to go private, by buying up their outstanding stocks at premium prices. Until this last quarter, they hardly spent any of their excess cash on "creating jobs," except in other parts of the world.
Kathy Hochul, a progressive Democrat, just won a special election for Congress in an upstate New York district that's about as Republican as Nebraska. She won nearly a majority, despite having three opponents, including a Tea Party candidate on the far right, a Republican who dutifully followed the party line on eliminating Medicare, and a Green candidate on the left.
Clearly, Newt was onto something when he backed away from Ryan's Medicare plan, but Republican hard-liners made him eat crow.
Maybe there's hope yet that the great muddled middle will understand that corporatists are not their friends: they represent what I've called "the selfish class" (on this website); supporting them will kill any possibility of democracy, or of a viable middle class. Their way will lead us to our own "476."
Friday, May 20, 2011
Schneiderman for President
We need leaders like Eric Schneiderman, because he's willing to pursue the big banks for driving us into the Great Recession.
I do mean that. The banks created the Great Recession. People were thrown out of work; people were thrown out of their homes, because big banks played such high-stakes fraud with all the nation's mortgages. They sliced them and diced them, sold them and resold them, and cut a lot of corners when they did all this, starting with the higher than usual number of fraudulent mortgages on which these securities were based.
Unemployment still has barely fallen to an official 9%, or a real 16%, the wave of foreclosures on homes seems unending, and is about to get even worse, now that "the paperwork" has been cleared up. Ordinary people are hurting, but it's because of the insane gambling by the banks, with depositors money, their money and money the Fed, a quasi-government entity, virtually gave to them, through extremely low cost loans.
When the banks were in danger of going bankrupt, the Government and the Fed offered $700 billion to bail them out with TARP, and then gave them extraordinary access to virtually costless money from the Fed. The program worked --for the banks and bankers. They're having one of their best years, bonuses are higher than ever, profits are soaring--
But we still have 9-16% unemployment, and we still have a sinking housing market, with millions of people ejected from their homes. During normal times, construction jobs are relatively plentiful. Now they are not; housing starts have fallen off a cliff.
All of this started because the wise-asses at places like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan thought they could play fast and loose with everybody's money. They thought they couldn't lose: until they did, beginning in mid-2007, when the bottom almost fell out of the whole global financial system, and it was because of their reckless behavior.
So far, no one has gone after the banks even for the fraud. I think they're responsible for much more, but at least the fraud has been documented. Still, neither Obama's DOJ, nor the 50 states attorneys general in their suit, have pursued the banks' massive fraud, even though it dwarfs any financial crime in history. That is, until now.
Enter Eric Schneiderman, New York's progressive Attorney General: he's going after Goldman, JP Morgan and Bank of America! I voted for him twice (first, in a five-way primary). The man's been busy in his first year: going after tobacco companies, Medicare fraud, corruption in state contracts, but now? Schneiderman has spurned the "deal" other AG's are negotiating. Instead, he's demanding documentation on the mortgage securitization that destroyed the housing market: he's looking for fraud. Finally, someone is!
Alert to Roman Senators! Slip some coke in Schneiderman's suit-coat; get a pimp to hook him! Your predatory schemes are suddenly at risk!
I do mean that. The banks created the Great Recession. People were thrown out of work; people were thrown out of their homes, because big banks played such high-stakes fraud with all the nation's mortgages. They sliced them and diced them, sold them and resold them, and cut a lot of corners when they did all this, starting with the higher than usual number of fraudulent mortgages on which these securities were based.
Unemployment still has barely fallen to an official 9%, or a real 16%, the wave of foreclosures on homes seems unending, and is about to get even worse, now that "the paperwork" has been cleared up. Ordinary people are hurting, but it's because of the insane gambling by the banks, with depositors money, their money and money the Fed, a quasi-government entity, virtually gave to them, through extremely low cost loans.
When the banks were in danger of going bankrupt, the Government and the Fed offered $700 billion to bail them out with TARP, and then gave them extraordinary access to virtually costless money from the Fed. The program worked --for the banks and bankers. They're having one of their best years, bonuses are higher than ever, profits are soaring--
But we still have 9-16% unemployment, and we still have a sinking housing market, with millions of people ejected from their homes. During normal times, construction jobs are relatively plentiful. Now they are not; housing starts have fallen off a cliff.
All of this started because the wise-asses at places like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan thought they could play fast and loose with everybody's money. They thought they couldn't lose: until they did, beginning in mid-2007, when the bottom almost fell out of the whole global financial system, and it was because of their reckless behavior.
So far, no one has gone after the banks even for the fraud. I think they're responsible for much more, but at least the fraud has been documented. Still, neither Obama's DOJ, nor the 50 states attorneys general in their suit, have pursued the banks' massive fraud, even though it dwarfs any financial crime in history. That is, until now.
Enter Eric Schneiderman, New York's progressive Attorney General: he's going after Goldman, JP Morgan and Bank of America! I voted for him twice (first, in a five-way primary). The man's been busy in his first year: going after tobacco companies, Medicare fraud, corruption in state contracts, but now? Schneiderman has spurned the "deal" other AG's are negotiating. Instead, he's demanding documentation on the mortgage securitization that destroyed the housing market: he's looking for fraud. Finally, someone is!
Alert to Roman Senators! Slip some coke in Schneiderman's suit-coat; get a pimp to hook him! Your predatory schemes are suddenly at risk!
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Medicare Voucher Madness
"Conservatives" persist in saying Medicare has to go! These guys really believe their own lies, the biggest one being that Medicare and Social Security cause the deficit.
An article by John Cogan in the Wall Street Journal (5/12/11), lays out what Republicans are trying to do: persuade us that for our own good, we just can't afford what we've been promised.
What we've been promised, Cogan claims, is an average of a million dollars per couple in combined benefits, while we've only paid in an average of $500,000. He doesn't bother to mention that the latter figure is dollars in the past, and the million is dollars in the future, i.e. inflated dollars with earned, compound interest.
It's true that Medicare was set up for fiscal disaster; that was done quite cynically by Republicans, with Bush's expansion into Medicare Part D, covering prescriptions, and overpaying insurance companies to participate in Medicare Advantage programs, without providing additional funding. Medicare still cannot negotiate drug prices, under the reform law, because big Pharma found enough Democrats, as well as solid Republican support, to block it.
Republican Ryan was touted, briefly, as "courageous" for daring to call for phasing out Medicare for private insurance vouchers, until he and his cohorts went to their districts and attempted to explain his plan. Then reality hit the fan. People don't believe their lies, or simply don't accept their conclusions: they don't want vouchers; they want Medicare.
And still, "pundits" opine that we can't afford Medicare, and Republican candidates must support Ryan's plan: Gingrich was almost disowned for opposing it.
Almost all other 'developed' nations have publicly provided, or heavily subsidized healthcare, not only for seniors, but for everyone. Their health outcomes are better than ours, yet they cost less, in some cases less than half what Americans pay.
So, why can't the United States, supposedly the richest, most powerful nation on earth, afford health care even for seniors, and retirements as generous as those of other 'developed' nations?
Because we have to spend so much on Defense, or on billionaires?
Let's be clear: Medicare was created because health care for an older person was too expensive for private insurance. Seniors do need more health care; age breaks down our bodies, although, because of superior medical care, more live longer than in past eras. Most seniors, including me, would be excluded from standard health insurance programs, because of "pre-existing conditions." So, our premiums would be sky high, our vouchers would pay only a portion of our real costs, and there is no way that the "magic of the market" would somehow make healthcare affordable.
Medicare replaced by vouchers? I know I'd be bankrupted by it, yet I'm pretty healthy.
But that's the idea: impoverish seniors: one more cohort to turn into serfs, so the new Roman Senators can have more money to play with in the money markets.
An article by John Cogan in the Wall Street Journal (5/12/11), lays out what Republicans are trying to do: persuade us that for our own good, we just can't afford what we've been promised.
What we've been promised, Cogan claims, is an average of a million dollars per couple in combined benefits, while we've only paid in an average of $500,000. He doesn't bother to mention that the latter figure is dollars in the past, and the million is dollars in the future, i.e. inflated dollars with earned, compound interest.
It's true that Medicare was set up for fiscal disaster; that was done quite cynically by Republicans, with Bush's expansion into Medicare Part D, covering prescriptions, and overpaying insurance companies to participate in Medicare Advantage programs, without providing additional funding. Medicare still cannot negotiate drug prices, under the reform law, because big Pharma found enough Democrats, as well as solid Republican support, to block it.
Republican Ryan was touted, briefly, as "courageous" for daring to call for phasing out Medicare for private insurance vouchers, until he and his cohorts went to their districts and attempted to explain his plan. Then reality hit the fan. People don't believe their lies, or simply don't accept their conclusions: they don't want vouchers; they want Medicare.
And still, "pundits" opine that we can't afford Medicare, and Republican candidates must support Ryan's plan: Gingrich was almost disowned for opposing it.
Almost all other 'developed' nations have publicly provided, or heavily subsidized healthcare, not only for seniors, but for everyone. Their health outcomes are better than ours, yet they cost less, in some cases less than half what Americans pay.
So, why can't the United States, supposedly the richest, most powerful nation on earth, afford health care even for seniors, and retirements as generous as those of other 'developed' nations?
Because we have to spend so much on Defense, or on billionaires?
Let's be clear: Medicare was created because health care for an older person was too expensive for private insurance. Seniors do need more health care; age breaks down our bodies, although, because of superior medical care, more live longer than in past eras. Most seniors, including me, would be excluded from standard health insurance programs, because of "pre-existing conditions." So, our premiums would be sky high, our vouchers would pay only a portion of our real costs, and there is no way that the "magic of the market" would somehow make healthcare affordable.
Medicare replaced by vouchers? I know I'd be bankrupted by it, yet I'm pretty healthy.
But that's the idea: impoverish seniors: one more cohort to turn into serfs, so the new Roman Senators can have more money to play with in the money markets.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The US a Slum for the World's Wealthy
"…we're where Europe comes to slum--in the low-wage factories of the South and the run-down houses of South Los Angeles." LA Times editorial, 5/15/2011
It wasn't always this way. The United States, after World War II, modeled high wage, highly skilled union workers, producing goods for the world, and living well while doing so.
When the US occupied Germany and Japan after World War II, our government exported the highly unionized American model. Part of our rationale was that unions would foster democracy, thereby combating Japanese fascism and German Nazism. Unions would also improve lives, giving them a stake in postwar governments. Today, Germany runs a trade surplus: Germans earn high wages, work shorter hours, have long vacations and are relatively highly unionized (27% vs 9.6% in the US private sector).
And the US? Wages have at best stayed where they were in the early 1970's, while productivity has doubled. Work hours are longer in the US, and vacations get shorter. Meanwhile, our buying power erodes, and we have the priciest, least effective health care system among developed nations. Further, there are US states where unions are so scarce and so scared (like North Carolina: 3.2%) that workers effectively compete with the Chinese for lowest cost manufacturing sites. High unemployment drives down costs further.
The US competes with China for low cost work, while running huge deficits and cutting benefits. China has the largest surplus, but Germany sells high wage goods, and has the second largest surplus in the world; it even keeps its social democratic benefits largely intact under a "conservative" government!
Whether Germany will continue to do so well as union membership declines, is an open question, but greater union clout still makes a political difference. German firms setting up shop in the US, however, (mostly in the South) keep unions out and enforce work conditions unthinkable in Germany. Also, in the US, Deutsche Bank perpetrated mortgage rip-offs it could never have gotten away with in Germany.
All the American talk of cutting deficits and debts is a diversion. We're a mine of money for predatory capitalists the world over; we're also the center of predatory capital on Wall Street.
In the past 30 years, the US has almost done away with its New Deal legacy; coincidentally, unions have been losing ground since Reagan and regulations were stripped from financial institutions--freeing them to fail so spectacularly in 2007-8.
And who pays? Not the banks, not large corporations: everyone else, but especially our children and anyone dependent on government services: ultimately, anyone who is not wealthy.
America is so like Rome before its fall, when Senators governed in their own interests. They drove the peasants and middle class into serfdom, and monopolized the empire's wealth, laying it open to collapse, and, ironically in retrospect, to piecemeal takeover by Germanic invaders.
It wasn't always this way. The United States, after World War II, modeled high wage, highly skilled union workers, producing goods for the world, and living well while doing so.
When the US occupied Germany and Japan after World War II, our government exported the highly unionized American model. Part of our rationale was that unions would foster democracy, thereby combating Japanese fascism and German Nazism. Unions would also improve lives, giving them a stake in postwar governments. Today, Germany runs a trade surplus: Germans earn high wages, work shorter hours, have long vacations and are relatively highly unionized (27% vs 9.6% in the US private sector).
And the US? Wages have at best stayed where they were in the early 1970's, while productivity has doubled. Work hours are longer in the US, and vacations get shorter. Meanwhile, our buying power erodes, and we have the priciest, least effective health care system among developed nations. Further, there are US states where unions are so scarce and so scared (like North Carolina: 3.2%) that workers effectively compete with the Chinese for lowest cost manufacturing sites. High unemployment drives down costs further.
The US competes with China for low cost work, while running huge deficits and cutting benefits. China has the largest surplus, but Germany sells high wage goods, and has the second largest surplus in the world; it even keeps its social democratic benefits largely intact under a "conservative" government!
Whether Germany will continue to do so well as union membership declines, is an open question, but greater union clout still makes a political difference. German firms setting up shop in the US, however, (mostly in the South) keep unions out and enforce work conditions unthinkable in Germany. Also, in the US, Deutsche Bank perpetrated mortgage rip-offs it could never have gotten away with in Germany.
All the American talk of cutting deficits and debts is a diversion. We're a mine of money for predatory capitalists the world over; we're also the center of predatory capital on Wall Street.
In the past 30 years, the US has almost done away with its New Deal legacy; coincidentally, unions have been losing ground since Reagan and regulations were stripped from financial institutions--freeing them to fail so spectacularly in 2007-8.
And who pays? Not the banks, not large corporations: everyone else, but especially our children and anyone dependent on government services: ultimately, anyone who is not wealthy.
America is so like Rome before its fall, when Senators governed in their own interests. They drove the peasants and middle class into serfdom, and monopolized the empire's wealth, laying it open to collapse, and, ironically in retrospect, to piecemeal takeover by Germanic invaders.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Osama bin Laden Wasn't Killed?
I know people who think the bin Laden assassination was a hoax, otherwise, they argue, why did the Seals ditch the body at sea?
The answer is probably two-fold: it was the Navy Seals, after all, which provided the muscle for the operation. But probably more importantly, a burial at sea, while it can be scrupulously correct in Islamic ritual--reportedly it was--also disposed of the body without thereby creating a martyr's shrine.
That's important on the Indian subcontinent: veneration of a martyr's grave, that becomes a shrine for a saint, in Islam, or an altar to a local god, in Hinduism, has a long and bloody history. Better, people have no specific place for pilgrimage--except the mansion in Abbotabad; that can't be avoided.
In the fifth century, people speculated that Attila didn't die, because he was buried in a secret grave beneath the river Tisza. All the captives who worked to divert the river, and to dig the grave, were summarily executed. Attila as Told to His Scribes on this site.
We've read or heard stories of Jesus's resurrection, or, in the case of Kazantzakis, succumbing to the temptation not to be crucified, and going on, living his life anonymously, somewhere else. There is also Elizabeth Cunningham's Passion of Mary Magdalen, in which Jesus rises again: Cunningham claims: "Maeve put the erection back into the resurrection."
Wait for it: Osama bin Laden will rise again.
What about the legality of the President ordering the assassination of someone who has publicly declared himself an enemy, and boasts that he's attacked us? It's probably stretching the elastic limits of Presidential authority as Commander in Chief, but unfortunately, there are precedents, at least since Wilson, and certainly since Kennedy. JFK apparently approved plots to assassinate Fidel Castro. His own assassination might very well have been blow-back. Lee Harvey Oswald had earlier defected to the USSR and later defended the Cuban Revolution.
The unreal world of government covert action and anti-government terror is a game that supposedly grown people play. Presidents are advised that they must, that it's their responsibility to Protect and Defend, that these super-secret operations are absolutely necessary.
And so, President Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, acted as judge, jury and Commander of the executioner.
If Obama had ordered bin Laden's capture, instead of murder, bin Laden's trial might have become a cause célèbre worldwide, and al Qaeda would have exploited it--to recruit more suicide bombers. Any dispassionate coverage of the trial would have infuriated true believers.
I suspect there is another, simpler reason why bin Laden was killed in the raid: Navy Seals, especially special units like the one which carried out the raid in Abbotabad, are probably trained to kill, not to capture.
Anyway, enough people, including Republican Congressmen, saw the gruesome photos of bin Laden, that we can be sure: he's dead.
The answer is probably two-fold: it was the Navy Seals, after all, which provided the muscle for the operation. But probably more importantly, a burial at sea, while it can be scrupulously correct in Islamic ritual--reportedly it was--also disposed of the body without thereby creating a martyr's shrine.
That's important on the Indian subcontinent: veneration of a martyr's grave, that becomes a shrine for a saint, in Islam, or an altar to a local god, in Hinduism, has a long and bloody history. Better, people have no specific place for pilgrimage--except the mansion in Abbotabad; that can't be avoided.
In the fifth century, people speculated that Attila didn't die, because he was buried in a secret grave beneath the river Tisza. All the captives who worked to divert the river, and to dig the grave, were summarily executed. Attila as Told to His Scribes on this site.
We've read or heard stories of Jesus's resurrection, or, in the case of Kazantzakis, succumbing to the temptation not to be crucified, and going on, living his life anonymously, somewhere else. There is also Elizabeth Cunningham's Passion of Mary Magdalen, in which Jesus rises again: Cunningham claims: "Maeve put the erection back into the resurrection."
Wait for it: Osama bin Laden will rise again.
What about the legality of the President ordering the assassination of someone who has publicly declared himself an enemy, and boasts that he's attacked us? It's probably stretching the elastic limits of Presidential authority as Commander in Chief, but unfortunately, there are precedents, at least since Wilson, and certainly since Kennedy. JFK apparently approved plots to assassinate Fidel Castro. His own assassination might very well have been blow-back. Lee Harvey Oswald had earlier defected to the USSR and later defended the Cuban Revolution.
The unreal world of government covert action and anti-government terror is a game that supposedly grown people play. Presidents are advised that they must, that it's their responsibility to Protect and Defend, that these super-secret operations are absolutely necessary.
And so, President Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, acted as judge, jury and Commander of the executioner.
If Obama had ordered bin Laden's capture, instead of murder, bin Laden's trial might have become a cause célèbre worldwide, and al Qaeda would have exploited it--to recruit more suicide bombers. Any dispassionate coverage of the trial would have infuriated true believers.
I suspect there is another, simpler reason why bin Laden was killed in the raid: Navy Seals, especially special units like the one which carried out the raid in Abbotabad, are probably trained to kill, not to capture.
Anyway, enough people, including Republican Congressmen, saw the gruesome photos of bin Laden, that we can be sure: he's dead.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Crime and Revolution
Egyptian police are demoralized, according to the New York Times (5/13/11) and a crime wave has swept through the country. People blame the chaos on the revolution.
When you release pressure from a pressure cooker, there's a SWOOF, as air escapes in a rush. Egypt was under authoritarian rule analogous to a pressure cooker. When Mubarak was overthrown, not only human rights workers but also criminals escaped from jails: about two-thirds have been recaptured. However, the police literally don't know what to do, because they were trained for an authoritarian regime and their abuses were exposed (torture and corruption were routine).
Since the US sends billions in aid to Egypt, it's obvious what we should spend it on: re-training the remaining police and training new recruits in democratic procedures (there's a shortage of police; many fled during the Tahrir uprising).
Change causes unforeseen consequences. Unless there is a rational response, there will be an irrational one: reinstitute a dictatorship to re-establish order.
This happened in Russia. The transitional democratic system fell because of terror from the Chechen civil war, and the outrageous corruption of the transition from the Soviet's managed economy to a "free market system." Corruption, fear and Russia's history of powerful rulers, helped create the Putin/Medvedev authoritarian model.
The same thing happened in the late western Roman Empire: chaos (lasting almost a century), led to Diocletian (284-305) creating a totalitarian regime; it limped into the fifth century before it gave up the ghost--to more primitive monarchies first set up by the Goths.
Democracies are messy, as the American experience amply demonstrates, but they are ultimately less fragile; mistakes and disasters call for changes through elections, not complete upheaval. The advantage is that institutions like the police are not destroyed, although they may be reformed, if they have been abusing their power.
It took the French from 1789 to the 1950's, over 150 years, before a stable democratic political system was finally established. Why? The Bourbon regime was disastrous, but the radical revolution overthrowing it was absolute and horrific. Institutions were abolished; new ones started from scratch, while the animosities created by the ensuing regimes took generations to neutralize.
In other words, upheaval, of the wholesale kind, taking place throughout the Middle East, causes many unwelcome changes. It may be a long time before things settle down, but there are ways to promote stability.
Institution building is key. Whether a nation had a poorly functioning police force, or none at all, it needs a force that keeps the peace, is not corrupt, and does not abuse its citizens. Aid to create such institutions, and a civilian-led military, could be much more effective than billions for sophisticated weapons. That's what the US should be doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well, instead of occupying them.
When you release pressure from a pressure cooker, there's a SWOOF, as air escapes in a rush. Egypt was under authoritarian rule analogous to a pressure cooker. When Mubarak was overthrown, not only human rights workers but also criminals escaped from jails: about two-thirds have been recaptured. However, the police literally don't know what to do, because they were trained for an authoritarian regime and their abuses were exposed (torture and corruption were routine).
Since the US sends billions in aid to Egypt, it's obvious what we should spend it on: re-training the remaining police and training new recruits in democratic procedures (there's a shortage of police; many fled during the Tahrir uprising).
Change causes unforeseen consequences. Unless there is a rational response, there will be an irrational one: reinstitute a dictatorship to re-establish order.
This happened in Russia. The transitional democratic system fell because of terror from the Chechen civil war, and the outrageous corruption of the transition from the Soviet's managed economy to a "free market system." Corruption, fear and Russia's history of powerful rulers, helped create the Putin/Medvedev authoritarian model.
The same thing happened in the late western Roman Empire: chaos (lasting almost a century), led to Diocletian (284-305) creating a totalitarian regime; it limped into the fifth century before it gave up the ghost--to more primitive monarchies first set up by the Goths.
Democracies are messy, as the American experience amply demonstrates, but they are ultimately less fragile; mistakes and disasters call for changes through elections, not complete upheaval. The advantage is that institutions like the police are not destroyed, although they may be reformed, if they have been abusing their power.
It took the French from 1789 to the 1950's, over 150 years, before a stable democratic political system was finally established. Why? The Bourbon regime was disastrous, but the radical revolution overthrowing it was absolute and horrific. Institutions were abolished; new ones started from scratch, while the animosities created by the ensuing regimes took generations to neutralize.
In other words, upheaval, of the wholesale kind, taking place throughout the Middle East, causes many unwelcome changes. It may be a long time before things settle down, but there are ways to promote stability.
Institution building is key. Whether a nation had a poorly functioning police force, or none at all, it needs a force that keeps the peace, is not corrupt, and does not abuse its citizens. Aid to create such institutions, and a civilian-led military, could be much more effective than billions for sophisticated weapons. That's what the US should be doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well, instead of occupying them.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Up Against the Wall?
Aren't we all!
Actually, some people are doing very well, thank you-and they want to keep it that way.
Do they worry about $4+ a gallon gas? Of course not. Do they worry that they can't afford to heat their home in the winter? Why should they? Heating bills are nothing, besides, The real question is: Tahiti or Crete? As for oil, they hope it goes higher--they own Exxon, or maybe StatOil: their dividends would rise even more.
A lot of people if they have substantial commutes and substandard wages, worry about $4 gas. Anyone in the northeast, who owns a home and lives near the edge of their income (most people), will worry about heating costs after a winter like the one we just survived.
Yet some people build huge houses: 40,000 square feet or more, and could care less if they cost a lot to heat. If they're also environmentally minded, they might install a geothermal/solar system, and never concern themselves about fuel costs again.
But the rest of us? I'm lucky to have a ready, sustainable supply of firewood, but I'm 72, so I don't expect to be able to get it myself too many winters longer. A lot of people turn their thermostats far below what's comfortable. And some are just cut off. Our power company was nasty when an old, transferred account was overdue.
And then there are the millions who have lost their homes, or are in danger of doing so: underwater, foreclosed, evicted.
The banksters, however, make out like bandits. They financed mortgages they knew were poor risks, made more so by the supercharged costs, and then sold them, over and over again. Their loans were fraudulent, the economy tumbled when their whole house of cards collapsed--and then Bush, succeeded by Obama, bailed them out.
Trillions for banksters, not enough billions for everyone else. The consequences: huge bonuses on Wall Street, soaring corporate profits, but continuing high unemployment and waves of mortgage defaults. The high joblessness keeps wages down, an advantage for any employer, which is why corporate clients--including virtually all Republican Representatives and Senators and many Democrats as well--scream about deficits and debts, but not about jobs, or middle class homes going into default.
Joblessness, and home foreclosures transfer trillions to the perpetrators of this whole scam, especially banks: joblessness keeps wages down, favoring employers, especially large ones, especially ones fending off unionization. Meanwhile, home foreclosures concentrate wealth in financial institutions.
This slow recovery, if it is a recovery, is what the elite prefer; it's why they press for cutting spending, while cutting their taxes. Profits are up and wages are down, so they have increasing power. Cut Food-stamps, public education, heating subsidies: the wealthy don't need them.
Soon, we'll be like Roman Senators and their serfs, but even now, the wealthy get more, and everyone else tries to make do with less.
Actually, some people are doing very well, thank you-and they want to keep it that way.
Do they worry about $4+ a gallon gas? Of course not. Do they worry that they can't afford to heat their home in the winter? Why should they? Heating bills are nothing, besides, The real question is: Tahiti or Crete? As for oil, they hope it goes higher--they own Exxon, or maybe StatOil: their dividends would rise even more.
A lot of people if they have substantial commutes and substandard wages, worry about $4 gas. Anyone in the northeast, who owns a home and lives near the edge of their income (most people), will worry about heating costs after a winter like the one we just survived.
Yet some people build huge houses: 40,000 square feet or more, and could care less if they cost a lot to heat. If they're also environmentally minded, they might install a geothermal/solar system, and never concern themselves about fuel costs again.
But the rest of us? I'm lucky to have a ready, sustainable supply of firewood, but I'm 72, so I don't expect to be able to get it myself too many winters longer. A lot of people turn their thermostats far below what's comfortable. And some are just cut off. Our power company was nasty when an old, transferred account was overdue.
And then there are the millions who have lost their homes, or are in danger of doing so: underwater, foreclosed, evicted.
The banksters, however, make out like bandits. They financed mortgages they knew were poor risks, made more so by the supercharged costs, and then sold them, over and over again. Their loans were fraudulent, the economy tumbled when their whole house of cards collapsed--and then Bush, succeeded by Obama, bailed them out.
Trillions for banksters, not enough billions for everyone else. The consequences: huge bonuses on Wall Street, soaring corporate profits, but continuing high unemployment and waves of mortgage defaults. The high joblessness keeps wages down, an advantage for any employer, which is why corporate clients--including virtually all Republican Representatives and Senators and many Democrats as well--scream about deficits and debts, but not about jobs, or middle class homes going into default.
Joblessness, and home foreclosures transfer trillions to the perpetrators of this whole scam, especially banks: joblessness keeps wages down, favoring employers, especially large ones, especially ones fending off unionization. Meanwhile, home foreclosures concentrate wealth in financial institutions.
This slow recovery, if it is a recovery, is what the elite prefer; it's why they press for cutting spending, while cutting their taxes. Profits are up and wages are down, so they have increasing power. Cut Food-stamps, public education, heating subsidies: the wealthy don't need them.
Soon, we'll be like Roman Senators and their serfs, but even now, the wealthy get more, and everyone else tries to make do with less.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
So, the Wicked Witch is Dead?
Let's notice: Osama bin Laden was not killed in a conventional military operation, and no conventional American or NATO forces are in Pakistan, nor was it a drone attack.
Many opposing war in Afghanistan have advocated tactics like the assault on Abbotabad. I have. It was a military maneuver, to be sure, but it was the kind of action that police forces also do: swooping in on helicopters to take a criminal head of a crime family, which is really what Osama was. Further, the intelligence, while more sophisticated than most police forces, was similar to good detective work.
Meanwhile, we've spent over $1.5 trillion on two wars to "destroy" the terrorists, but covert operations and police work have been the most effective. The question therefore arises: why are 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan?
Why don't we boost our Special Operations forces, and our CIA covert ops, use the kind of surveillance that pinpointed bin Laden's hiding place, and withdraw our troops from a fruitless Afghan war? Even Karzai wants us to go, and there are indications that some Taliban are willing to negotiate: they know they can't win, but we can't either.
Our goal in Afghanistan was to "destroy al Qaeda," but most of its operatives are elsewhere, and we got its honcho in Pakistan, not with full-scale military action, but with covert police action.
AQ is "hiding in plain sight" in Pakistan, in Yemen, and probably in other places. Covert action like the assault in Abbotabad makes sense against a movement like the formless, territory-less al Qaeda.
The Taliban is not the same thing: it's confined to Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan, and is largely a Pashtun movement, aiming at Pashtun control of Afghanistan, or southern Afghanistan and the western tribal areas in Pakistan. It does not threaten the US--unless we're in Afghanistan.
The problem is: the US military doesn't want to forego an expensive war, or a foothold in central Asia. Further, we have clients there who don't want us to leave: they make billions on us. There's also a pipeline route.
Osama bin Laden has already accomplished a good part of his agenda: to bankrupt the world's superpower, and to terrorize us into doing away with a significant part of our freedoms: a beacon for Muslims as well as other peoples.
Our military in Afghanistan results in many civilian casualties, even if more of them are at the hands of the Taliban. Even our reluctant client, President Karzai, says we should leave. Further, our counter-productive actions drive Afghans into the arms of the Taliban--young men whose family-members are killed in poorly targeted attacks on their compounds, or on mistaken bombing raids, or when fathers are summarily hauled off to prison at Bagram.
But will an Empire withdraw before it's defeated? Osama's assassination would give us the excuse.
Many opposing war in Afghanistan have advocated tactics like the assault on Abbotabad. I have. It was a military maneuver, to be sure, but it was the kind of action that police forces also do: swooping in on helicopters to take a criminal head of a crime family, which is really what Osama was. Further, the intelligence, while more sophisticated than most police forces, was similar to good detective work.
Meanwhile, we've spent over $1.5 trillion on two wars to "destroy" the terrorists, but covert operations and police work have been the most effective. The question therefore arises: why are 100,000 American troops in Afghanistan?
Why don't we boost our Special Operations forces, and our CIA covert ops, use the kind of surveillance that pinpointed bin Laden's hiding place, and withdraw our troops from a fruitless Afghan war? Even Karzai wants us to go, and there are indications that some Taliban are willing to negotiate: they know they can't win, but we can't either.
Our goal in Afghanistan was to "destroy al Qaeda," but most of its operatives are elsewhere, and we got its honcho in Pakistan, not with full-scale military action, but with covert police action.
AQ is "hiding in plain sight" in Pakistan, in Yemen, and probably in other places. Covert action like the assault in Abbotabad makes sense against a movement like the formless, territory-less al Qaeda.
The Taliban is not the same thing: it's confined to Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan, and is largely a Pashtun movement, aiming at Pashtun control of Afghanistan, or southern Afghanistan and the western tribal areas in Pakistan. It does not threaten the US--unless we're in Afghanistan.
The problem is: the US military doesn't want to forego an expensive war, or a foothold in central Asia. Further, we have clients there who don't want us to leave: they make billions on us. There's also a pipeline route.
Osama bin Laden has already accomplished a good part of his agenda: to bankrupt the world's superpower, and to terrorize us into doing away with a significant part of our freedoms: a beacon for Muslims as well as other peoples.
Our military in Afghanistan results in many civilian casualties, even if more of them are at the hands of the Taliban. Even our reluctant client, President Karzai, says we should leave. Further, our counter-productive actions drive Afghans into the arms of the Taliban--young men whose family-members are killed in poorly targeted attacks on their compounds, or on mistaken bombing raids, or when fathers are summarily hauled off to prison at Bagram.
But will an Empire withdraw before it's defeated? Osama's assassination would give us the excuse.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Jobs, Quantitative Easing and a Capital Strike
Americans elected a Republican House because Democrats let them down, especially on creating jobs. Yet, Republicans think you can make more jobs by radically cutting Government spending, especially for the poor. That hasn't worked for the Tories in Britain, and it makes no sense: there is too little demand for new jobs, already; cutting spending reduces the demand further.
The absence of a strong fiscal policy is at the heart of the problem.
Bernanke began the Fed's Quantitative Easing II (QE 2) as a monetary substitute for the stimulus and job creation the Government should have been doing; QE2 will be completed in June. The Fed will have injected $600 billion in new money into the economy, but unemployment is only slightly lower. The more direct effects are: the stock market has been toying with a 13,000 Dow, and corporations have been meeting and beating profit expectations. The flood of money helped drive gold and silver to historic highs, oil to over $113/barrel; food and other commodity prices are soaring.
QE2 may have driven some of these price hikes through speculation, but hiring was only weakly boosted, and with QE2 ending soon, official unemployment is only a shade under 9%.
The Fed could face a capital strike if it attempted more. It's maintaining interest rates at historic lows, and Bernanke claims inflation will remain low, or even go lower. With S&P threatening to downgrade US debt ratings, with the Street clamoring against monetizing the debt, and Paul Ryan chairing the House Budget Committee, the Fed is unlikely to do more.
QE2 could only accomplish so much, anyway. Bernanke implied at its inception that he preferred a rational Government fiscal policy. QE2 was adopted because it was unlikely Obama and House Republicans would be able to reach an agreement to stimulate the economy.
Instead, we face stalemate. Radical Republicans demand the cuts outlined by Congressman Ryan and more. Speaker Boehner already faced difficulty corralling votes for the 2011 budget compromise. Democrats know they'll lose their base if they cave further to Republican demands. What is needed is what Obama and the Democrats didn't have the courage, or votes in the Senate, to push through in 2009-10: a real jobs bill, and a real takeover of the housing mortgage mess.
Will we hang on until 2013? With no jobs program, only the payroll tax stimulus, and housing markets falling further? Would corporations hire more, with falling demand for goods? Would banks resolve their mortgage mess: admit their fraud and losses? Dream on!
A deadlock on the debt could slam us into a Depression, and a likely Republican takeover. They favor putting corporations in control, much like the monopoly of power held by the Senatorial class of the late Roman Empire. Americans would be reduced to surplus labor, competing with low-wage workers worldwide.
Maybe we'll get bread and circuses?
The absence of a strong fiscal policy is at the heart of the problem.
Bernanke began the Fed's Quantitative Easing II (QE 2) as a monetary substitute for the stimulus and job creation the Government should have been doing; QE2 will be completed in June. The Fed will have injected $600 billion in new money into the economy, but unemployment is only slightly lower. The more direct effects are: the stock market has been toying with a 13,000 Dow, and corporations have been meeting and beating profit expectations. The flood of money helped drive gold and silver to historic highs, oil to over $113/barrel; food and other commodity prices are soaring.
QE2 may have driven some of these price hikes through speculation, but hiring was only weakly boosted, and with QE2 ending soon, official unemployment is only a shade under 9%.
The Fed could face a capital strike if it attempted more. It's maintaining interest rates at historic lows, and Bernanke claims inflation will remain low, or even go lower. With S&P threatening to downgrade US debt ratings, with the Street clamoring against monetizing the debt, and Paul Ryan chairing the House Budget Committee, the Fed is unlikely to do more.
QE2 could only accomplish so much, anyway. Bernanke implied at its inception that he preferred a rational Government fiscal policy. QE2 was adopted because it was unlikely Obama and House Republicans would be able to reach an agreement to stimulate the economy.
Instead, we face stalemate. Radical Republicans demand the cuts outlined by Congressman Ryan and more. Speaker Boehner already faced difficulty corralling votes for the 2011 budget compromise. Democrats know they'll lose their base if they cave further to Republican demands. What is needed is what Obama and the Democrats didn't have the courage, or votes in the Senate, to push through in 2009-10: a real jobs bill, and a real takeover of the housing mortgage mess.
Will we hang on until 2013? With no jobs program, only the payroll tax stimulus, and housing markets falling further? Would corporations hire more, with falling demand for goods? Would banks resolve their mortgage mess: admit their fraud and losses? Dream on!
A deadlock on the debt could slam us into a Depression, and a likely Republican takeover. They favor putting corporations in control, much like the monopoly of power held by the Senatorial class of the late Roman Empire. Americans would be reduced to surplus labor, competing with low-wage workers worldwide.
Maybe we'll get bread and circuses?
Thursday, April 28, 2011
The Trouble with Royal Weddings
Royal weddings excite the masses, even in this long-lost colony, and even the classes. A surprising number have a craving for pomp and circumstance, and the homey, back-of-the-house type glimpses of the Royals, themselves.
Royal weddings leave me cold, royal gossip does not interest me in the slightest. However, royal weddings, royal this's and royal that’s's do play important political roles.
For example, as style-setters, royal weddings promote the "wedding industry," which pushes cookie-cutter weddings that are way too expensive for most young couples, or their usually strapped parents. The extravagance of the royal wedding this Friday will be recreated thousands of times in imitation over the next few years. And Americans, as well as Brits, Canadians and so on, will want to emulate the winsome couple--to the distress of their bank accounts, which are nowhere near as substantial as Prince William's.
The British Royals are very wealthy, very upper-caste, very white and pretty boring--on purpose, now, after Diana. Their lifestyle is not one most people can afford, but people want to emulate it. To me, that's unfortunate. One example of this unconscious emulation are the sweeping lawns in suburbs and exurbs here--no one mowed lawns until they got a gander at the aristocratic piles in Britain, with broad sweeps of what the British called "shaved grass." Those expanses, and the aped expanses here (where a man sits on a $5000 mower and mows for hours), are simply extravagance, lands that could be used for pasture, vegetables or allowed to grow wild. At Buckingham Palace, goes the story, an admiring American tourist asked a gardener, "How do you grow such a beautiful lawn?" The answer: "Oh, it's easy, Sir. Just keep mowing it for 300 years." I should add: English rain probably helps a lot, too: lawns in Britain, maybe, but in Arizona?
The left wing of the Labour Party wanted to abolish the monarchy until recently. The royals, they argued, epitomize the old class system in which a few are extremely wealthy and the rest may even be poor, but are grateful to the few for their spectacle. Monarchy popularizes a retrograde class system.
My daughter got married on April Fools; she and her groom were married at his mother's smallish house, in the back yard--in costume. Family and friends pitched in to carve hors-d'oeuvres or arrange trays. Everyone wore zany costumes: I was a Roman Senator. I've been to many weddings--my wife, as interfaith minister, officiated at many--but this was the most fun and memorable I've seen. The wedding cost about $1,500.
Too bad Darshann and Peter couldn't be models, instead of Kate and William. A lot of young couples would avoid incurring huge debts. And the elites wouldn't be even more emboldened to act like British aristocracy--which modeled itself after Roman Senators.
Royal weddings leave me cold, royal gossip does not interest me in the slightest. However, royal weddings, royal this's and royal that’s's do play important political roles.
For example, as style-setters, royal weddings promote the "wedding industry," which pushes cookie-cutter weddings that are way too expensive for most young couples, or their usually strapped parents. The extravagance of the royal wedding this Friday will be recreated thousands of times in imitation over the next few years. And Americans, as well as Brits, Canadians and so on, will want to emulate the winsome couple--to the distress of their bank accounts, which are nowhere near as substantial as Prince William's.
The British Royals are very wealthy, very upper-caste, very white and pretty boring--on purpose, now, after Diana. Their lifestyle is not one most people can afford, but people want to emulate it. To me, that's unfortunate. One example of this unconscious emulation are the sweeping lawns in suburbs and exurbs here--no one mowed lawns until they got a gander at the aristocratic piles in Britain, with broad sweeps of what the British called "shaved grass." Those expanses, and the aped expanses here (where a man sits on a $5000 mower and mows for hours), are simply extravagance, lands that could be used for pasture, vegetables or allowed to grow wild. At Buckingham Palace, goes the story, an admiring American tourist asked a gardener, "How do you grow such a beautiful lawn?" The answer: "Oh, it's easy, Sir. Just keep mowing it for 300 years." I should add: English rain probably helps a lot, too: lawns in Britain, maybe, but in Arizona?
The left wing of the Labour Party wanted to abolish the monarchy until recently. The royals, they argued, epitomize the old class system in which a few are extremely wealthy and the rest may even be poor, but are grateful to the few for their spectacle. Monarchy popularizes a retrograde class system.
My daughter got married on April Fools; she and her groom were married at his mother's smallish house, in the back yard--in costume. Family and friends pitched in to carve hors-d'oeuvres or arrange trays. Everyone wore zany costumes: I was a Roman Senator. I've been to many weddings--my wife, as interfaith minister, officiated at many--but this was the most fun and memorable I've seen. The wedding cost about $1,500.
Too bad Darshann and Peter couldn't be models, instead of Kate and William. A lot of young couples would avoid incurring huge debts. And the elites wouldn't be even more emboldened to act like British aristocracy--which modeled itself after Roman Senators.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
The Newsletter Path to Riches
Let's say XXX is a "penny stock"promoted for the day. Promoted by online penny stock newsletter writers. Xxx went up from 1.12 to 1.46 in one day, because of the hype. If you invested $10,000 in Xxx on Monday, it would be worth over $13,035.71 on Tuesday. On Wednesday it went down again. Where is that money from small-time investors going?
Apparently, this speculation is raising money in $500,000 increments, for the man who is Xxx, a professional, who offers services to companies, as a company on the Over the Counter market; it's not clear that there is any more than one man in the company, but he's raised millions this way.
What kinds of services does this one-man company offer: contract advice with other companies, advising and facilitating offshore contracting, "to lower your costs," technology licensing and acquisitions of other companies, i.e. mergers.
Will Xxx rise tomorrow? One of the more revealing statements I've read on these penny newsletter sites is: "It rose to .01 before it fell back to .001, but it's set to rise even further this time."
What's going on here? I've been dabbling in this field for six months, even investing in some of the weightier "penny stocks" promoted; so far I've only lost a few hundred bucks. None of the stocks promoted have gained a dime; one has lost 77% of its value, another 47%. I did not invest in Xxx, but the second loser was a Chinese stock that collapsed when its CEO was caught fiddling the books. I didn't get the news--about the CEO--until too late.
I also invested in a silver mine, but right now, while silver goes through the roof, the mine shares lost 90 cents!
This is a game. The only people who win are either full-time gamblers (they call themselves day traders), or entrepreneurs who manipulate the market to raise money for themselves--or their companies.
But that's the point, isn’t it? They raise money for business enterprises. Small-time investors rush in to strike it rich with the next Microsoft, Google, or Facebook. It's the gamblers who make money on the boobs buying penny stocks to make their fortunes. The gamblers do play a role: they provide incentives to the hungry public, drawing in millions, billions of dollars from small-time investors, who are easily gulled.
But how else do you get rich when the producers of anything tangible, the actual producers, get little more than subsistence? "If the poor don't like being poor, then why don't they get rich?" asked a student in one of my classes. By investing in speculative stocks? It brings money out of the proverbial mattresses, into the hands of entrepreneurs, fiddling CEO's and speculators.
This is Late Capitalism; it's like the 'Late Roman Empire,' where all the gold flowed upward, into the hands of the predatory few.
Apparently, this speculation is raising money in $500,000 increments, for the man who is Xxx, a professional, who offers services to companies, as a company on the Over the Counter market; it's not clear that there is any more than one man in the company, but he's raised millions this way.
What kinds of services does this one-man company offer: contract advice with other companies, advising and facilitating offshore contracting, "to lower your costs," technology licensing and acquisitions of other companies, i.e. mergers.
Will Xxx rise tomorrow? One of the more revealing statements I've read on these penny newsletter sites is: "It rose to .01 before it fell back to .001, but it's set to rise even further this time."
What's going on here? I've been dabbling in this field for six months, even investing in some of the weightier "penny stocks" promoted; so far I've only lost a few hundred bucks. None of the stocks promoted have gained a dime; one has lost 77% of its value, another 47%. I did not invest in Xxx, but the second loser was a Chinese stock that collapsed when its CEO was caught fiddling the books. I didn't get the news--about the CEO--until too late.
I also invested in a silver mine, but right now, while silver goes through the roof, the mine shares lost 90 cents!
This is a game. The only people who win are either full-time gamblers (they call themselves day traders), or entrepreneurs who manipulate the market to raise money for themselves--or their companies.
But that's the point, isn’t it? They raise money for business enterprises. Small-time investors rush in to strike it rich with the next Microsoft, Google, or Facebook. It's the gamblers who make money on the boobs buying penny stocks to make their fortunes. The gamblers do play a role: they provide incentives to the hungry public, drawing in millions, billions of dollars from small-time investors, who are easily gulled.
But how else do you get rich when the producers of anything tangible, the actual producers, get little more than subsistence? "If the poor don't like being poor, then why don't they get rich?" asked a student in one of my classes. By investing in speculative stocks? It brings money out of the proverbial mattresses, into the hands of entrepreneurs, fiddling CEO's and speculators.
This is Late Capitalism; it's like the 'Late Roman Empire,' where all the gold flowed upward, into the hands of the predatory few.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)