RE: - The last time our system became unbalanced by the haves vs. the have nots, it took Teddy Roosevelt to take them on.

The last time? I did not know that Teddy took them on after Reagan was elected. Or does Reagan count as this time?

Paul Bramscher:
I totally agree with the rules which you have set out, but I think they are too radical for any Western (read Capitalist) economy to put in action. The minority of people who work in the the Financial sefices sector (services - that makes me laugh), very rarely contribute to the wealth of the nation, because they have offshore funds and property, yet they make obscene amounts of money from people on the poverty line.
I have often said, that I favour a progressive socialist style of government (not Communist), which will be able to put all of the checks and regulations in place, and not worry about the elite in society. There should be a basic standard of living, which everyone is entitled to. Back in the days of Margaret Thatcher, we in Britain had council housing available for the needy, or those on the first rung of the ladder. Then, the Thatcher government brought in the "right to buy" scheme, which enebled the purchase of these houses, thus taking them out of the market they were intended for. We in the UK then went through inflation on a grand scale, with interest going up to 15% in the late eighties, and many people forced to lose their homes. We are facing a different problem now, one manufactured by the banks, with the government turning a blind eye.
We need a new style of leadership to drag us out of this mess, but we first need the populace to realise that Republicans/Democrats/Conservative or Labour parties are not going to provide the answer.

AndyUK:

We need much more than this. The 3-5 times annual salary is barely borderline here in the US, and the amortization tables on many mortgages over 30 years -- even with a low interest rate -- provides the banks with more money than the value of the property itself.

The whole concept of a mortgage is relatively new on the human scene, and predicated ultimatly on an indigenous population (whether ancient European, Native American, etc.) sustained to be permanently dislocated from the land it lives on. Rather than being born with an intrinsic right to live in a community, we are born with fundamental hostility: pay up, or get the f*ck out.

I'm of the opinion that very radical change is needed. For instance,
* No interest more than about 1% of the principal, to cover administrative costs only. No more usury hidden in amortization.
* Perhaps a 5-10 year mortgage at most, and perhaps 50% the value of the property at most.
* Ensure various mechanisms that the value of property is fully exposed to these limitations. i.e. If people cannot afford to mortgage their lives away, the value MUST FALL to meet economic realities of homebuyers. It cannot be racketeered or artifically inflated.
* Land/housing which is between owners should revert in ownership to a locally-owned and independent bank (we have "Credit Unions" here). i.e. Property may not be owned by any corporate entity outside of the county, whether directly, or through some sort of corporate/shell relationship.
* Perhaps make one exception for families who want cabins or vacation cottages. Each household is allowed a single non-local property.

If we enacted the above, I believe that most of our misery would evaporate, and only a relatively small handful of bankers would suffer.

Paul Bramscher, I have been looking into these long term mortgages, and have found 45 and even 50 year mortgages, both here in the UK, and over in the US. There was once a form of mortgage called the "Japanese mortgage", and it used to pass from father to son. There is no way that the majority of people in their seventies and eighties, will be able to afford a mortgage, so it would have to be passed on, or the people would be signing the property over to the bank. This could of course be the intention, that the financial institutions want you to fund your own pension plan, using the equity from your property. This of course would stop any family inheritance, and make the banks even richer. I sincerely believe that Capitalism, as an economic model has failed, because there is insufficient regulation or controls. The existing controls/regulations/ombudsman, are all self-regulating, administered by people within the industry.
If we suddenly had an interest rate cut, then millions of people who already had a sub prime mortgage, would find their financial position improved. However, with the current lack of regulation - free market, competition, Capitalism - call it what you like, property sellers would be able to charge more, safe in the knowledge that the banks can lend ridiculous amounts of money, based on 45 - 50 years combined with 10 times salary allowance. This is clearly going to cause inflated property prices, and will still cause heartache, misery and poverty for millions.
We need to have some financial regulations set in stone - limit mortgages to 30 years, the allowance should be based on 3 times single or 5 times dual salary, and finally, do not allow 100% mortgages.
If house prices have been artificially inflated (which I believe they have), then by putting in place these regulations, prices would be forced to fall, and property ownership would be within reach of more people.

The last time our system became unbalanced by the haves vs. the have nots, it took Teddy Roosevelt to take them on. He was also an environmentalist. Many of our national parks were the result of his work.

We have now turned back the clock. My worry, however, is now so many people have bought into the "ownership society" because a) the haves don't want to take care of the have nots or b) the have nots think it will bring them into the world of the haves.

Unfortunately, we are now a "global ECONOMIC society" - big business can go just about anywhere they choose to go for cheap labor. They no longer have any corporate responsibility for their home country (meaning no patriotism) - their ownly responsiblity is to their investors and shareholders.

What they "give back to the community" is peanuts to what their bottom line is.

So, unless your economic scale puts you in the "have" column, or we take back this country like Teddy Roosevelt did, all of us may find ourselves homeless and poor. And no one will care. The only thing the corporations want is us willing to work for the same wages (and without benefits) they pay overseas so they can make bigger profits. Their only loyalty is to the coin of the realm.

AndyUK:

That's the worst piece of news I've seen all week. Is there a name for it, a good site explaining what it's called, how it works? Are we going back to the Middle Ages? The bankers have both our governments by the bollocks.

I used to think it was primarily population density which caused the rise of propertylessness, but even in high density housing it's possible for people to own condos, flats, etc. The absentee landlord problem, coupled with the ownership society's ability to force modern serfs into servitude is in some important ways worse than the middle ages. Most of us are not only landless, but we're charged for squatter's rights.

Paul Bramscher, here in the UK we already have mortgages which can be passed down to the next generation, this is in my view "negative inheritance". You may think that the sub prime crisis is unique to the US, but it has existed for a few years over here.

capitalismnotpoverty, what do you know about Naomi Klein's husband's family? Avi's grandfather, David Lewis, the second leader of the NDP, was a devout anti-communist - there is 50 years of RCMP surveillance to back up this fact. Avi's great grandfather left Poland because he was part of a union in his small town and the Soviet Union threatened him for speaking out.

RE: - Not only is this whole article silly and 100% wrong, but the logic is also flawed since she laments the ownership society and then later on rails about people losing their homes.

There is something missing in your interpretation and, because you are looking at it from a different perspective, you come by it honestly.

There is nothing wrong with owning one's own home - everyone wants to do that. Naomi Klein is talking about a philosophy which was being sold along with home ownership which is captured in Bush's phrase "ownership society." It was to make people who just purchased homes feel like they had more in common with ie Haliburton than they do with others, of of roughly their income level who rented. The first thing that Naomi Klein is arguing is that, even though they owned homes, they didn't have anything in common with Haliburton and that Haliburton's interests were not their interests even though, as new home owners, they were being told they were the same.

The second thing that Naomi Klein is arguing was that people were not being sold affordable homes with affordable mortgages (even though they were tricked into thinking they were). The Mortgages started off low in sub-prime and then went up really high - so for most of the people who took them, they ended up worse than if they just kept renting - losing their lives savings just trying to hold onto the house.

Eventually, the majority of them lost their homes but not all at once. The first who lost their homes blamed themselves - either for being conned or being poor managers - either way, most were too embarrassed to talk about it so the illusion that sub-prime gave home ownership continued. Everyone else (including those with sub-prime mortgages) blamed them for being poor money managers. Thus, the slogan "ownership society" was more of a mirage than something real - though even some who lost their homes continued to believe that the mirage of the "ownership society" was real - and those who didn't were too busy trying to get out of their financial mess to be involved in politics. It was not until sub-prime thing hurt the stock market that the cloak came off the wolf. Primer on Sub Prime (what we are told about it - which you may also find flaws in):

U.S. Mortgage Meltdown
http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/politicseconomy/clevelands_housing_disaster.html

The third thing that Naomi Klein was arguing was that Bush encouraged the Sub-Prime mess and his use of that phrase was the smoking gun.

The Thatcher thing has a few different details, so will deal with that later.

RE: - The ownership society is real, if you want people and a country to prosper you must have personal property rights and the citizens must exercise that right. This means owning physical property, business, stocks, bonds, etc.

So what is your opinion on rent control? What is your opinion on affordable housing or of union negotiated wages so that one can afford the mortgage payments? There is nothing wrong with owning a house, but there is something wrong with the idea that home ownership makes one's interests the same as one's bosses. Your bosses make more profit by policies which undercut wages and employee bargaining power. You make more profit by policies where worker rights are written into national agreements. Bill Blaikie argued that we should put worker rights into FTA/NAFTA and he was overrulled by the big guys. If Mexico was punished for not paying their workers a living wage, they would have to pay their workers a living wage in order to sell their goods without tariff. If Mexican workers made the same money as American workers, there would be no incentive for a Plant to close up in Detroit and move to Mexico.

About the stock market. Personally, I don't see the difference between owning stock in Bre-X and betting on horses - what does gambling have to do with property rights? I will let the gamblers deal with that one.

RE: - Are you also a fool in thinking that people do not need to save for their retirement years via 401k, IRA's, etc? This is a must in todays society where the average American will retire in their 60's and will live for another 10-30 years.

Sub-Prime took away people's retirement savings. If one is paying 50-60% on rent/mortgage - which seems to be the norm - one isn't going to be able to save for their retirement no matter how well they manage their finances. Ok, if you drop the idea of the nuclear family and have more than one household living under the same roof, you can make a go of it.

RE: - Even war becomes just another element of the game.

True. But one doesn't need a war (thanks for the lead in btw). Like Napolean using the probably dead Snowball as an external threat to keep people in line in Animal Farm, all one needs is an external threat fake or real. I am not talking about Henderson's goal here or the fact that during the 1972 Canada-Russia series, hockey fans were not afraid to go to the Soviet Union to watch games. I am talking about Mulroney saying that he would have never tried to sell Thyssen products to Putin because he knew Russia had no more money for Military funding (video):

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071212/mulroney_testifies_071213/20071213/

I wonder what the Capitalist view of the Mulroney-Schreiber affair is. I am sure that this scandal is not just contained in Germany and Canada but goes deep into the United States.

RE: - Until we can come up with a whole new concept of ownership, we're done for.

True. You know that if your relative dies, you have to go through the apartment before you put the death notice in the paper because, since the deceased did not give notice before he or she left, everything in the apartment belongs to the landlord. Thus, you either have to sneak things out before the landlord realises the person is dead or pay an extra month's rent (so that notice would be seen to have been given). That rule turns family members into grave robbers - and there can be squabbles whether something was in the apartment when the person died or was long gone or not. Who decided that landlords have this legal right?

RE: - Capitalismnotpoverty repeats the false capitalist mantra that 'economic freedom' (newspeak for capitalism)equals 'political freedom'.

But it is a myth that many believe - even when such belief conflicts with their personal interest and those of their family.

RE: - My question is: Will this Portal Alliance enable the Bankers and Wall Street perpetrators of the present sub-prime mortgage and securitization scam, hide evidence of their past fraudulent behavior in connection with this scam, thereby eliminating potential criminal convictions?

I don't know. Germany and the UK seem bent on having someone pay for the Sub-Prime fiasco (at the stockmarket end of it). They are hopping mad over the whole thing so they want someone to go down for it. I just wonder who will take the fall for everyone else.

Except for the CIBC (which deserves it), Canada has pretty much escaped the whole subprime fiasco. What we have to worry about if the effects of an American recession has on the American demand for Canadian goods. That is why Canada is trying as hard as it can to keep its loonie lower than the greenback.

RE: - I attended a lecture on "Globalization" and tried my best to understand why it should not be called "Multi-National Privatization".

Point taken. Point argued often by the NDP's Bill Blaikie. Now Peter Julian is the NDP critic for these kinds of agreements.

RE: - Bill Gates wants to buy Yahoo. If he is allowed to do this than he gains control of hundreds of millions of e-mail accounts.

Who has control over them now?

Well, Google pretty much makes Gates look like small potatoes. Not just their search engine, blogging system, email, and Google Earth -- all of which mine user habits.

But also their ad system and Google Analytics -- which is being used here at Common Dreams. The technology entails a javascript call to an extremely obfuscated piece of code (ga.js) which I cannot decipher, which may change at any time, the terms of service may change at any time, Google indemnifies itself, and -- forbids the disassembling/decompiling/etc. of the code anyway.

Whether by placing a Google ad, or referencing their off-site analytics script, anyone -- such as Common Dreams -- is sharing traffic, habits, IP addresses, etc. with Google. Interestingly, also, Google's Earth project was originally incubated for intelligence agencies.

Ultimately it's hopeless, because everything we do on the internet is inherently traceable. But it's probably worth running the Firefox browser (blocking Google cookies) with the NoScript extension. With NoScript, you can selectively block out analytics, etc. which shares your traffic, IP, etc. with Google (or anyone else you want to block out).

Naomi Klein is perceptive and articulate. Sometimes, I wish that she would combine forces with Daniel Estulin,the author of "La Verdadera Historia de Club Bilderberg".

They could help explain who makes the decisions in the "World".

I attended a lecture on "Globalization" and tried my best to understand why it should not be called "Multi-National Privatization". The more markets you control, the more wealth you can gain and accumulate. Bill Gates wants to buy Yahoo. If he is allowed to do this than he gains control of hundreds of millions of e-mail accounts. He will know your purchasing habits and a lot of personal information and be able to charge you more for his services. Wow, what a philanthropist. Not, what an accumulator of wealth, control, and power.

While I am at it since the dollar devalued from $.89 to 1 Euro down to $1.48 for 1 Euro that was a devaluation of 66%.........

Rebel Farmer February 2nd, 2008 3:02 pm

"Gail: Is that a retorical question?"

Let me elaborate my thoughts. Klein said: "To avoid regulatory scrutiny, the new trend is away from publicly traded stocks and toward private equity."

This "new trend" will obviously prevent Goldman Sachs and other members of the Portal Alliance to avoid any future government regulation and scrutiny because government legislation has allowed private equities to operate with little to no oversight; a government-granted privilege for being super-wealthy and supporting political campaigns with huge contributions.

My question is: Will this Portal Alliance enable the Bankers and Wall Street perpetrators of the present sub-prime mortgage and securitization scam, hide evidence of their past fraudulent behavior in connection with this scam, thereby eliminating potential criminal convictions?

Capitalismnotpoverty repeats the false capitalist mantra that 'economic freedom' (newspeak for capitalism)equals 'political freedom'. Clearly this contributor to the discussion suffers the common ailment of free marketeers and post modernists which is an ahistorical approach to reality. Perhaps he should be reminded that every political freedom enjoyed by humanity had to fought for by working people at barricades, in the streets and on the factory floor. These freedoms included:
1. The 8 hour working day;
2. The right to vote;
3. The right of women to vote;
4. Freedom of association through struggling for the right to form trade unions and the right to form working class political parties;
5. The right to public education;
6. The right to public health care;
7. The right to leave, and breaks at work;
8. The right to a pension. et.etc. etc.

The only real productive 'property' that workers in a market economy own is their labour power, their ability to work. Capitalism is little better than slavery, because any worker who refuses to bring his ability to work is denied food, clothing, shelter etc. which should be basic human rights, not market commodities.

I suggest that capitalismnotpoverty goes and reads the history of these rights and freedoms not just in the USA but globally and he or she will see that the capitalist classes would haver prefered a society in which men, women and children would work for sixteen to eighteen hours a day in the most appalling conditions without any freedoms, rights or recourse.
Much of this kind of primitive accumulation still occurs in those third world countries who are the closest allies of the USA, these are also amongst the most vicious dictatorships on the planet. Just look South to Latin America for both current and historical examples.

In the USA 'primitive accumulation' abounds with regard to 'illegal immigrants', that layer of rightless individuals who suffer vicious exploitation, which exploitation puts food on the tables of middleclass America.

The market economy excludes anybody who do not have access to the means of effective demand, i.e. a healthy bank balance, this is why the poor, the elderly, the unemployed and the weak are invariably excluded. I suggest you read Galbraith's, 'The Culture of Contentment', Galbraith's 'The Economics of Innocent Fraud,'or Boyer and Morais' 'Labor's Untold Story.'

An in depth discussion of the fallacy of equating 'political freedom' with capitalist 'economic freedom' in terms of the unfounded assumptions of capitalist economic freedom is beyond the limits of this post, but the nonsense of the economics of people like Milton Friedman are obvious in their monstrous expression in the realities of the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, not to mention Uruguay, Bolivia, Argentina, Iran and Indonesia. The political interference of the USA always with the objective of bringing political and economic 'freedom' gave us Kampuchea (yes, Pol Pot was the consequence of US interference in South East Asia), Afghanistan (the USA put the Taliban in power), Iraq (you created the monster Saddam Hussein, God save us from what will emerge from the mess the USA is making there now.

History is a cruel judge of imperial arrogance. It will be so for the end of empire shenanigans of the USA as well.

I'm waiting for the trans-generational mortgage. Unless we have a new American Revolution (and a corresponding revolution in much of Europe as well), we're headed toward trans-generational debt. It's not so much the sleepy government that needs to go (although go it must), it's the financiers running the show. Just as wealth is inherited, so shall personal debt be inherited. It'll take multiple generations to service a mortgage. For instance, a 75 or 100 year mortgage, with no escape clause for the descendants.

If government remains asleep at the regulatory wheel, or taking kickbacks as usual, we'll see the new 50-year mortgage segue into the 75. And since most people don't buy a home until their 20's at least, and life expectancies aren't much longer than the 70's anyway, it'll become a lifetime encumbrance -- only one step away from trans-generational debt.

All it would take is slow introduction of something like this into the marketplace. Perhaps 5-10% of all loans along these lines. Then the prices will rise on property, as they so when monthly payments decline. So more people will be inclined to aim at the 50 or 75 year loan as the only way they can "afford" it, causing prices to rise further, and the avalanche continues.

You may think I'm kidding here. Sadly, I'm not.

Until we can come up with a whole new concept of ownership, we're done for. The Homesteading concept, Adverse Possession, bioregional movements, absentee landlord problem, etc. are all issues to read up on. I'm of the opinion that the tradesmen who build property need to be paid, certainly, but ultimately whoever lives in X owns X. The whole idea that a distant bank owns it is somewhat preposterous when you think about it.

Re: josephmorton February 1st, 2008 6:04 pm

"McCain is the greatest threat to the planet of any politician in 50 years or more. He is a nut and a war monger. The author, however, is just one of the many mush headed liberals that appear on common dreams. We need slash and burn candidates to defeat this monster McCain, and the dirtier the politics against him the better."

Joe, you hit the nail on the head and I think we will see plenty of dirt flying after Super Tuesday, especially with the razor thin margins still apparent between tweedle dee, tweedle dum, and tweedle dummer. I'll write in Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel or Mickey Mouse in November....no less a "wasted vote" than for one of the schmucks that has "risen to the top" of this cesspool.

Re: Ken Mitchell February 1st, 2008 5:58 pm

"Ownership. Dubya got the land to build the Texas Rangers' baseball stadium by eminent domain."

Ken is right on the Texas Ranger thing. I had lived in Arlington at the time for 25 years and could see the handwriting on the wall....a bond election held on the sly in the middle of the week with about 6,000 votes in a city of 275,000 passed.....so everyone got to pay for Shrub's little piss ant team's new digs.

I never bought a damn thing in Arlington after that (to avoid paying "my fair share") and moved away as soon as I could.

Fast forward to 2007 and who do you think is paying for Jerry 'Bug Eyes' Jones new "Dallas" Cowboy stadium....? The answer isn't Bug Eyes and it isn't the citizens of Dallas either.

Whenever a new round of layoffs was announced, sending another stock price soaring, many responded not by identifying with those who had lost their jobs, or by protesting the policies that had led to the layoffs, but by calling their brokers with instructions to buy.

Exactly. And I remember right before the war being in the gym listening in on two guys conversing, strategizing how the war would affect their investments. A nefarious way to distract people from the actions of their government: give them something to root for, something to win or lose. Even war becomes just another element of the game. People who have bought into the system will act accordingly.

Wow, where to start.

Not only is this whole article silly and 100% wrong, but the logic is also flawed since she laments the ownership society and then later on rails about people losing their homes. If the world was structured the way she wants it then these people would never own a house so how are they worse off by losing it? Are they not just ending up in the same position she wants them in anyway?

The ownership society is real, if you want people and a country to prosper you must have personal property rights and the citizens must exercise that right. This means owning physical property, business, stocks, bonds, etc. The author does not understand since she does not study or want to know that history teaches us that economic freedom (actually liberty) and political freedom go hand in hand. Communism practices what she believes and we all know how that turned out.

Are you also a fool in thinking that people do not need to save for their retirement years via 401k, IRA's, etc? This is a must in todays society where the average American will retire in their 60's and will live for another 10-30 years. While 50 years ago the avg person retired and died within 2 years so a large retirement wasn't required. But today with modern medicine people live a lot longer.

Why does she want everyone dependent upon other institutions to support the citizens, e.g. SS, or corporate pensions, etc. Is it not better to be self financed or should be all at the mercy of the gov't to provide us support ?

This lady thinks people having ownership is evil and dangerous but she is one with the dangerous ideas (I wonder if she owns a home, or stocks etc?). Wanting everyone to be dependent upon other institutions leads to gov't enforcement which results in the loss or real personal liberties and eventual to socialism/communism. We all know how well these societies worked out for the people - everyone suffers on a scale that modern Americans can not even comprehend. When I read or hear people make staements like the authors I am reminded of a favorite quote of mine: ( "many people will chose the equality in slavery over the inequality of freedom").

After visiting Amazon.com and seeing the books this author writes and what a left wing radical she is, I believe she is a lost cause. However, it is always rathe ironic that people like her make a lot of capitalistic money off the many books, article she writes railing against the capitalistic system.

Books to read if you want to learn economics and capitalism (2 are even Nobel prize winners):
"free to choose" - friedman
"road to serfdom" - hayek
"the mystery of capital" - desoto
"the commanding heights - the battle between gov't and the marketplace" - yergin

I should give fair warning that if you read these books you will be optimistic about capitalism and well educated to debate those who push gov't solution to problems.

Not my song - but not that bad either. One can also point to a bit of naivity in Steve Earle's Rich Man's War. I used to be able to write poems but no more - but the poet in me says it sounds better sung than it looks like it would written.

RE: "a corporation is not a person."

There technically isn't a law. However, there was a misinterpretation of a ruling which has been taken as a law for many years. Thus, there is a bit of grandfathering which might be hard to undo.

cadsuch - with an attitude like that it is no wonder you weren't on the Conrad Black jury! Honest opinion - do you think Lord Black of Crossharbour got off too easy? They never told the jury that Black was kicked out of a prestigious school for selling copies of the exams to students. I wonder if knowing that would have made a difference.

Cadsuch: Traditionally, seizure of the educational system to introduce a radical reorientation is accomplished through revolution, usually violent.

Vaudree: The poem contains the fallacy of previous american innocence, but I thought it was a nice poem.

The system is broken because the people who built this country with their bare hands, and build everything the ownership society sells, have no power. The only people with power are the paper shufflers. And paper shufflers produce absolutely NO VALUE. The only people producing any value are entrepreneurs and working people. The rest of them are just paper shufflers.

Whenever we start talking about CEO's making $145,000,000 in bonuses just for failing at their job, some demand that we reform corporate compensation. (regulation?) Just keep in mind who is really producing real value in our market place. See, this isn't the first time this stuff has happened. It may be the only time some people have first hand knowledge of how the peasants are abused by the paper shufflers, but it may just be because some of us are too young to have been around to witness it.

We can't sit back and wish and hope the system will work itself out. I'm pretty sure it won't. And here is what I mean. There are SOME people, both peasants and paper shufflers, who are convinced that the electricity they have in their house comes out of that switch on the wall over by the door. And there are some people who think that the food on the table comes from the grocery store, so the farmers who grow the food are unimportant and quite expendable. An even larger number of very informed folks believe that all those dirty trucks driven by all those dirty truck drivers shouldn't be allowed any where NEAR their city. See, I'm not sure how to overcome this kind of ignorance. And I'm not meaning to insult anyone. We just need to figure out a way for a whole lot of people, who already KNOW stuff, to become a whole lot more AWARE then they are showing me.

we could fix a lot of this with a simiple change in law, some common sense which says explicitly in one line,

"a corporation is not a person."

wow, imagine that.

then maybe we can all go back and read a little Paine and understand again that the whole notion of Private Property is the root of this Beast.

From Straight Goods:

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owbBzPzTxz0

One Big Union

by MATTHEW GRIMM & THE RED SMEAR

When the paycheck just ain't stretchin like it might've once before
'Cause the good jobs all are gone and left you in some bigbox store
Between food and rent and medicine, the suits just rate a whole lot more.

When the bosses cut that last corner and you walk out those doors
When the truckers hauling sweatshop stuff won't stop there anymore
When folks won't cross your pickets cause their boat's the same as yours
That is one big union.

When the nickled and the dimed have had enough of being screwed
When they walk out of the sweatshops and the cops refuse to shoot
When the puppet regimes fall, when the World Bank gets the boot
That is one big union.

They call it a labor surplus
Market-value poverty
But what if that which ye do to the least of my brethren
So you do unto me.

We built the tanks and ships that
Saved a world in darkest throes
Back when young men fought for the rights of mankind
Not just some CEOs.

When a simple, decent living is a right that we all share
When the suits see us as people not just assets to be pared
When they can't just ship your job off cause it's happening everywhere
That is one big union.

When the volume of this chorus grows till they can't help but hear
When our leaders serve the people, not just banks and profiteers
When the food and labor of the earth feed everyone here
That is one big union
That will be one big union
Come join our one big union.

Did any of you see 22 Minutes's Investment Advice for the Rest of Us? It is Jan 29, 2008 but you have to scroll down a bit to click on it:

http://www.cbc.ca/22minutes/

Gail: Is that a retorical question?

If this is any consolation, if there are "the chosen ones", We common dreamers are among them.

We understand the pathological nature of our system, our leaders and some of it in ourselves...

We know from history that it is gonna get a lot worse before any real good change can occur, and most of us do fight the good fight and we are still learning from each other.

Hang in there folks and hold on to your ass, its gonna be a rough ride ahead.

According to the prophecy

JOSO,

good stuff! indeed, the world becomes much easier to understand once you posit the existence of the psychos.

Tirebiter I hope you aren't one of those con-servatives who also consider himself to be a Christian because if you do you fail utterly. Hint Christ said sell all your possessions and give to the poor, not screw you I've got mine like you do.

"To avoid regulatory scrutiny, the new trend is away from publicly traded stocks and toward private equity..... Nasdaq joined forces with several private banks, including Goldman Sachs, to form Portal Alliance, a private equity stock market open only to investors with assets upward of $100 million."

Wouldn't this "Portal Alliance" also preclude any Congressional investigations of Bank/Wall Street fraud connected with this subprime scam which could, if not definitely, lead to criminal convictions?

There are some lenders here in the UK offering 45 year mortgages, at up to ten times joint salaries. This will only help to inflate the market, and cause more problems, which could lead to a property crash and then depression.

We have just had a news story in the UK, that EggBank (the internet credit card supplier, part of Citicorp), has withdrawn 160,000 cards from people, because it said they were a risk. At first I thought this was a case of banks starting to be more carefull with their money, but then the truth was revealed. The 160,000 cards belong to the people who always pay on time, and never attract charges or interest. Apparently the banks do not want good dependable payers, because we make them lose money. This is an admission, that the people the banks want, are the strugglers, the person who makes the minimum payment every month, and accrues lots of charges. They want the very person who will probably fall into serious debt problems, and take out consolidation loans or other dubious financial packages.
So, if you are poor, struggle to pay your bills, you are up to the limit on your cards, then expect a whole new range of offers through the post.
If however, you don't have any debt, always pay up on time, and would like a loan for that new car, then you may find that your credit rating has been damaged.

Ownership Society is like "patriot" act. Says one thing, means another. Most right-sponsored slogans are like that. Consider though, that 401(k) plans were an accident that grew. They never had a name.

Consciousness might be a relic, but reality would be the opposite.

A mortgage isn't a ticket to ownership, it's a 30 year penalty for being poor. The ownership society decided it could make more money from people by charging them for squatter's rights. Indeed, on my 6.5% loan the amortization works out to more money in the hands of Chase-Manhattan than the value of the property itself. The long-term results of this dynamic should be clear: the bankers will eventually own everything, the dollar will continue to decline in buying power, or both.

"Well before the ownership society had a neat label, its creation was central to the success of the right-wing economic revolution around the world. The idea was simple: if working-class people owned a small piece of the market–a home mortgage, a stock portfolio, a private pension–they would cease to identify as workers and start to see themselves as owners, with the same interests as their bosses. That meant they could vote for politicians promising to improve stock performance rather than job conditions. Class consciousness would be a relic."

This is brilliant. It communicates volumes in three sentences. The substitution of "consumer" for "worker" was the newspeak transition at the same time.

I made several $1,000. on Texaco Stocks back in the early 80's. I cashed out and bought the first of 3 used ( purchased outright) Diesel Vw rabbits.
At 50 mi per gal., & roughly 20,000 mi per year.I figure I've saved somewhere between $15,000./ 16,000. since then.

Subprime catastrophic for African-Americans and Latinos

Already 500 years behind in home ownership, disadvantaged groups slip to more than 5000 years behind.

http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewNote8.cfm?REF=17

Dear Mr. Tirebiter

I am assuming (probably incorrectly) that you are not just another asshole troll so I was particularly drawn to this comment you made:

"The benefits of owning assets and being master of your own ship aren't going away. As our society cruises toward a breakdown in its ability to continue with huge inter-generational income transfers (social security, medicare, etc…)most folks with half a brain are making plans to see to their own needs."

Since when are Social Security and Medicare "inter generational income transfers"? They are insurance programs paid for by the people who pay the premiums - you and I. What makes the piece of fascist filth in the White House salivate about these programs is the opportunity to steal this huge pool of cash and give it to his friends on Wall Street. Talk about an inter-generational income transfer! You'd have to be a hopeless nitwit not to see that. No offense intended.

Ownership society did not start with Thatcher, or Reagan or Bush. George Orwell in 1939 referred to the changes that occurred in England between World War 1 and World War 2 in his novel 'Coming up for Air.' The poin he makes exposes the 'con' in 'conservative', the very same con with which Thatcher and Bush conned their respective working classes. Orwell writes, 'Of course, the basic trouble with people like us...is that we all imagine that we have got something to lose. To begin with nine-tenths of the people in Ellesmere Road are under the impression that they own their houses. Ellesmere Road and the whole quarter surrounding it, until you get to the High Street, is part of a huge racket called the Hesperides Estate, the property of the Cheerful Credit Building Society. Building societies are probably the cleverest racket of modern times... the beauty of building society swindles is that your victims think you're doing them a kindness... Merely because of the illusion that we own our houses and have what's called 'a stake in the country,'... are all turned into... respectable householders -thats to say Tories, yes-men, and bumsuckers...the fact that actually we aren't householders, that we're all in the middle of paying for our houses and eaten up with the ghastly fear that something might happen before we've made the last payment, merely increases the effect. We're all bought, and what's more we're bought with our own money. Every one of those poor downtrodden bastards, sweating his guts out to pay twice the proper price for a brick doll's house that's called Belle Vue because there's no view and the bell doesn't ring - every one of those poor suckers would die on the field of battle to save his country from Bolshevism" (published by Victor Gollancz,1939). This is what the mortgage and sub-prime is all about!
A house is consumptive property in any case, owning consumptive property is meaningless given that a small minority in the USA own the real means of production (productive property) the factories, the mines, the farms, the banks etc.
Like someone else said, it is a question of power. We know all these things Naomi, we have known them for a long time, appealing to politicians in the current political set up in the USA will help nothing, overthrowing the entire system. Democracy in the USA is a joke pity that US citizens are the last to cotton on to it.

Polls will not distinguish between those who are against war, and those who are against losing in a war. The one's who are against the conduct of this war will register as against the war but aren't. Americans are comfortable with wars they think they can win, and unhappy with those they think they are losing. Americans are comfortable with war because they have never suffered its effects at home. They are virgins, and thus unaware of the particulars of the act.

Why didn't he pull the trigger, at least give us a reason! It's getting harder and harder to stay a Bulls fan these days. Reminiscing about the Glory-Michael Jordan Days are wearing thin.
---------
http://www.vcao.net

McCain was certainly supported by people who were against the war. That was, and is, the correct statement, as strange as it may sound to some, it is not unusual for people to vote contrary to their own interest. And this Kucinich Ron Paul comments are rather absurd. Ron Paul is as reactionary as you can get on most issues that Kucinich stands for. Paul would abolish Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security and many other programs that are at the heart of Kucinich's program's, not only how, but over a long period of time going back to his term as mayor of Cleveland where he refused to sell the city's power plant. Ron Paul would sell or abolish all social programs.

What is the difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? A lot more than most think. It lies in their actions and their records, which speak far louder than their similar policy platforms.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/2/0181/84501/394/448113

RE: - Dubya got the land to build the Texas Rangers' baseball stadium by eminent domain.

Who helped fund Bush in this venture?

RE: - I am afraid this woman, whoever she is, is drinking too much gatorade. People vote their interest in this country? How absurd. / The author, however, is just one of themany mush headed liberals that appear on common dreams.

I doubt that Naomi Klein (born of a doctor father who came to Canada during the Vietnam war) votes Liberal. Not with the family she married into. Primer on Naomi Klein:

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1667

Whether people vote their interests or not is besides the point. What is the point is is that people need to be aware whether they are voting against their interests or not. We should be voting in the interests of human dignity and human rights. We should not be voting for those who exploit others. Do we? Probably. Should we?

RE: - McCain is the greatest threat to the planet of any politician in 50 years or more. He is a nut and a war monger.

How does he compare to Romney, in your opinion?

RE: - NAFTA caused American incomes to drop while prices continued to rise.

The SPP has been referred to as NAFTA on Steroids. Seems that Bush is going to have another SPP meeting in New Orleans in April - I wonder what is behind the location? I wonder if they will let protesters camp out in Canadaville.

RE: - They use fear & hate, sex & sexuality, religion and ideology to create issues that have nothing to do with governance, but everything to do with winning votes.

True enough. Is that why John Edwards name came up when Naomi wrote the article? Did sub-prime create the shock which necessitates the empty promise of hope that Obama seemed to deliver? Naomi Klein said something about growing up fast and not wanting Rudy Giuliani (sp?) to be her daddy - maybe she doesn't think Father Knows Best.

Workreno will watch the links when I finish this post.

Edwards is not totally out yet, only suspended. If things fall apart fast enough, he and hopefully Gore too might just find a convention ready for something other than status quo masked as change.

As the overseas targets wise up, we are left to prey on each other. Hell, we're not about to get together and make a real plan for an actual civilization. Health Care? Ha! Conservation and Renewables? Get a life! Safety net? Oh, I won't fall...

For Bush war and baseball are the same thing and he blew them both.

Naomi Kline is a great nail hitter!
And so many good comments here too like Vince Lewis.

Josepmorton comes close but misses the nail with: "they vote against their interests because of pseudo "values" arguments "

It isn't their "pseudo values argument" so much as it the corporate use of PSEUDO ISSUES that obscure and manipulate reality for a large part of our population. They use fear & hate, sex & sexuality, religion and ideology to create issues that have nothing to do with governance, but everything to do with winning votes. These phony issues are instilled via the corporate loud speakers otherwise known as the pseduo news media and Bush & Co.

A large portion of our hard working, but non reading population is being manipulated in a classic way: Using phony issues that arouse emotion and sending them into every home via TV and newspaper.

A voting populace is only as good as the info they get.

Bush has been quoted as saying in 1998 ( I don't have the actual quote so it something like) that he needed a war so that he would then have the political clout to bring about the economic changes he wanted at home. Which we now recognize as the selling off of America to the highest bidder for his/their own profit.

Stock portfolios? What?

I have put this reference on before and here it is again.

http://www.inequality.org/

Click on "By the Numbers" and page down to the pie charts. As of 2004, 10% of people owned nearly 80% of the stock! So why are people talking about middle class Americans buying stock.

For the other 90% of the people, I suspect that many are like me. I am retired and fortunately have two retirement incomes. Not big ones, but... One of them is connected in some mysterious way to the stock market and varies with it. I have nothing to do with its management.

The economic problem is structural. Wealthy interests have engineered the passing of laws that benefit the wealthy. This has been happening over a long period of time. Additionally risk has been shifted to the public, especially the middle class. NAFTA caused American incomes to drop while prices continued to rise. People first took the equity out of their homes to live, then drained their savings, then used their credit cards. All of this was done in an attempt to maintain their standard of living. Now people have low incomes, no health insurance, no savings, no equity in their homes, and the bottom is falling out of the economy. This is no big secret, the poor and the middle class are broke.

Prices are still exceptionally high compared to income and people cannot buy. The poor and middle class have been sucked financially dry. The economy is going nowhere but down.

josephmorton February 1st, 2008 6:04 pm:

"Consider the South; when they were solidly Democratic and racist, they would vote for people who would, reluctantly it is true, take a stand against racisim."

Sir, this is not historically accurate. Dixiecrats left what was the Repugs over the Civil War. Repugs were the party of The Abolishinists. After the war, the Dixiecrats negotiated the end of Reconstruction after the Panic of 1873. By 1875 the newspapers of the North were complaining that they could no longer afford to keep Federal troops in the South to maintain the voting rights of Black Citizens against the organized terror/lynching/murder campaigns of the Klan. The Dixiecrat segment of the Democrat Party took over the South and ran Jim Crow and maintained the Plantation Oligarchy that exists to this day. They even worked with FDR on his programs as long as they excluded Blacks.

The break came in 1964/65 with the passage of the Civil Rights/Voting Rights Acts. By the end of '65 Johnson knew he had lost the South. He was right. The Dixiecrats returned to the Repug fold and could wave the Stars & Bars of Jim Crow and Nullification proudly. They have ever since. With all due respect to Kevin Phillips & Nixon's "Southern Strategy", the Dixiecrats were already stripped down and lubed up when Nixon arrived. All he had to do was promise to keep the Blacks, the Hippies, & the Protesters "In Their Place". We got COINTELPRO.

The rest, apart from some State sponsored covert domestic executions, false imprisonments, and ritual defamations, is history. Your voting actually has had very little to do with anything here for about 35 years.

Sorry for the bad news.

RIP

I can't understand why Buffet and Gates are getting so little "MEDIA" play. Could it be because they're breaking the "Eleventh" commandment....

Sharing doesn't mean you're weak, it might mean you're smart.

Joseph Morton: Sir, you may be misreading polls. McCain is not supported by people against the war, but by people against the present conduct of the war. They think he can do better.

papiowhisperer February 1st, 2008 12:25 pm

"With Dennis Kucinich out of the race Ron Paul is
our only hope. Change parties and vote RP in your
local primary/caucus if it's not too late already.

I don't agree with RP on everything, but he is the one
DK endorsed. They voted against all the wars, the patriot
acts, etc.

Audio of Kucinich talking about Ron Paul as a running mate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By_zxa1qnj4

Dennis Kucinich asked about Ron Paul on Free Minds TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX1 "

Thanks for the links I agree whole heartedly ,was just sayin the same thing on some other threads.

I remember my dad telling me that when he bought our family's first house, in the 1960s, in Northern New Jersey, the price of the house was equal to one year of his salary.

yes, Treefrog, a "dangerous oportunity" [wei ji]to be precise. dangerous because they may wake the sleeping zombie masses this time.

I am afraid this woman, whoever she is, is drinking too much gatorade. People vote their interest in this country? How absurd. She needs to read an introductory text book. Then she Reagan says convinced people that their interest was in his programs. If they voted their interests, they would certainly nown Reagan's plan was not in their interest. It is easy to produce volumes of data showing that people do not vote their interests but are likely to vote against them selves. Consider the South; when they were solidly Democratic and racist, they would vote for people who would, reluctantly it is true, take a stand against racisim. Once they became Republicans,they vote against their interests because of pseudo "values" arguments that keep them the most backward people in a really backward U.S. Look at the polling data on voters for McCain, and we find that a large part of his support comes from people that oppose the war. McCain is the greatest threat to the planet of any politician in 50 years or more. He is a nut and a war monger. The author, however, is just one of themany mush headed liberals that appear on common dreams. We need slash and burn candidates to defeat this monster McCain, and the dirter the politics against him the better. Maybe we can convince, in that manner, people to vote for their own interest and against more war and misery for the rest of the world.

Ownership. Dubya got the land to build the Texas Rangers' baseball stadium by eminent domain. The conservatives claim to oppose eminent domain, except when their hero does it.

ownerous society?

The chinese see crisis as an opportunity, that is how some people here see it as well. If you are a fatcat ceo of a multinational corporation you probably are laughing all the way to the bank. Anyone that knew anyone that lived through the great depression knew what was happening, Hal Lindsey predicted this in the 70's (it just has taken longer than he predicted) It's not rocket science, it's the same ole story but the safety net has been removed for those that will suffer and those that will just work themselves to death trying to have that american dream.

Some people here are getting away with murder. For gods sake, these people are criminals and deserved to be locked-up. Oh wait...they are the law and the gatekeepers. They have the power and they can wield it as the like.
But, there is a solution to this thievery and madness, lets impeached them and vote them out of office. But wait again...the masses are too ignorant and stupid. We are too far indoctrinated into the system, caring more about meaningless things like abotion rights, school prayer, Anna Nicole Smith, and etc. When there is more important things to worry about like Universal Health care, and affordable housing.

THis is a very interesting article and I applaud Naomi Klein for that..

Did someone say koolaide ! Where is Kesey when we need him !

Political rhetoric is almost always a smokescreen.

The promise of an "ownership society" is no different than the con of "trickle down economics".

The result of both systems was more money at the top !

Serious poverty amongst Americans is the ONLY way the population will begin to question the system. Americans care only about themselves. When stuffing yourself starts to become truly expensive, the population will finally be angry enough to demand changes. The government's response will be repression and massive incarcerations. The US is heading toward a third world moment.

I suppose it is sensible to assume that most people would rather have more stuff or lead more comfortable lives.

Naomi's theories show how us plebes often end up being gamed by the system a intriguing web of corporate, government, and cultural players who in the long run may actually be acting counter to their long term interests. For instance if resources are finite and the mortgage debit structure require accelerating markets, is competitive nest building a wise pursuit?

Key players in the market seem to keep asking for the same interventions that may precipitate their downfall (eg: Citygroup, Enron, WorldCom)

Maybe our economic system truly is a free for all led by that famous 'invisible hand' and brain I guess.

Hey why not sell that bimmer and become a new age bohemian!

They call it the "Zoo Economy" in some circles. The keepers don't want the animals to get spooked. And certainly don't want them to starve. But want them to do lots of tricks along the way. In this framing, elections are but an exercise in "Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others".

RE: - the personal fawning gets a little sugary.
If I were a professional writer I'd listen to my critics more than my groupies,

Point taken. I think I avoided commenting on a recent previous article of hers because I didn't have any criticism. I am not a NK groupie (rolled my eyes at "No Logo") but I am an Avi fan. Avi's grandfather coined the phrase "corporate welfare bums."

"Sub-prime crisis" is the phrase the media uses to describe it here - so NK is just using the term most associate with it.

The term "crisis" is used differently in Canada than in the US going by your definition of it. The phrase "crisis in leadership" or "the latest crisis in Parliament" comes to mind. Crisis is just when things reach a boiling point. If something is a really really big "crisis" then it is called a "scandal."

We are not about to call it a "sub-prime scandal" because, as Canadian, we are polite. ;)

Agree with you on the phrase "predatory lending" - yet why is Canada presently going through a housing boom even with your "thingy" going on?

There is nothing wrong with home ownership, but there is in setting people up to fail or in conning people into siding with their oppressors. These lenders were only pretending to make home ownership affordable.

Greener than Thou - let's drink to that. Since I don't have any champaign, I'll toast you with my green tea and hot chocolate glass.

If Ron Paul is indeed our only hope, I'll have some of that koolaide.

Let's break out the koolaide and celebrate it's founding!

Ron Paul is
our only hope

On that slogan you could start a new religion!

I received an email relating to the discussion:

Retirement Planning

If you had purchased $1000.00 of Nortel stock one year ago, it would
now be worth $49.00.

With Enron, you would have had $16.50 left of the original $1000.00.

With WorldCom, you would have had less than $5.00 left.

If you had purchased $1000 of Delta Air Lines stock you would have
$49.00 left.

But, if you had purchased $1,000.00 worth of beer/wine one year ago,
drank all the beer/wine, then turned in the cans/bottles for the
aluminium recycling REFUND, you would have had $214.00.

Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to Drink
heavily and recycle.

Let people you care about know... and tell them to Start Now!!!

So Maggie the Iron Lady (with the compassion of an iron maiden) came up with that idea!

I remember when Filmon tried to sell low rentals in Canada. Luckily Doer was able to combat that and people were smart enough to talk about whether those who lived in housing would be able to replace the furnace or the water heater or fix the roof (all things that would need to be done soon enough).

Sadly and luckily, Paul Martin as Jean Cretien's Finance Minister, had gutted the low rental housing project so that, by the time Filmon suggested that, the low rentals were pretty old to begin with. So, it was pretty easy in the coffee shops to talk up the idea that they were just suggesting the selling of low rental units because they wished to avoid replacing the furnaces.

In Manitoba we know that -40 C is just as cold as -40 F.

Don't you just hate this about NK though that her argument is presented in such a way that one feels like there is nothing to add to it! You nod and nod and nod and then realize you've got nothing to say.

RE: - Now that John Edwards is out of the presidential race, the question is, will anyone dare to use it?

What does Naomi Klein, a Canadian who votes NDP, mean by this statement?

Is she trying to insinuate that Clinton and Obama are wolves in Edwards's clothing? Silencing of the Lambs?

RE: - Could you try to create a little more balance between rich and poor.

Hey, you left out the middle class (Bush hasn't completely eroded it yet) - it is the rich and the rest of us. We all hurt, though some of us worse than others.

RE: - We need to stop being victims. We need to start campaigning to restore power to people and take power away from corporations.

I think that there is going to be an SPP meeting in NO this April. The last one with The Three Amigos and 30 CEOs took place in Montebello. At least that is how I'm interpreting George Bush's Address:

And tonight I am pleased to announce that in April we will host this year's North American Summit of Canada, Mexico, and the United States in the great city of New Orleans.

Transcript:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326149,00.html
Video:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080128/george_bush_080128/20080128/

RE: - With Dennis Kucinich out of the race Ron Paul is our only hope.

If I thought that way, one would have to keep sharp objects away from me. Ron Paul feels the same way about social programs for people as he does about social programs for corporations. You know those "charter schools" they are setting up in New Orleans to replace the damaged public schools - Ron Paul is not against that.

Also notice that, unlike Kucinich and Edwards and Gravel yesterday, Ron Paul participated in Wednesday's CNN debate.

RE: - Not everyone is cut out to be a homeowner - renting is sometimes the answer.

More people would be "cut out" for it if wages were higher and bank rates reasonable. Many of the subprime people were making their Mortgage payments before they doubled - and there lies the Repug Tory error. As long as bankruptcy was an individual thing and each person figured that the other person was at fault for losing their homes (and that most people were able to hold onto them), this dream of home ownership for low income earners would continue even as many fell victim and lost everything. However, these subprime mortgages entered the stock market and now everyone and their sister knows about this story.

All great comments...Vince Lawrence excellent comments and OldRascal very true indeed.

The ownership society is floating on a sea of deciet and Bush has been auctioning off the life rafts.

"Ownership Society" is just a SCAM.

This DEMOCRACY is supposed to be "government of the people, by the people & for the people" ..

WE THE PEOPLE ALREADY OWN EVERYTHING!!!

Why buy it back from the CORPORATE THIEVES who STOLE IT?

Hey Zoya, you read my mind -- I'm forwarding this to one of my profs -- fits right in.

Ms. Klein is quickly becoming one of my favorite human beings. What follows is an excerpt of any essay that I began three years ago to the day.

" The subversion of socially responsible attitudes here in America takes many subtle routes. Consider for example the un-remarked consequences of the widespread investment in the stock market by average middle-class citizens that occurred in the decade of the '90's. Does anyone besides me sense a connection between this widespread investment by ordinary citizens and the ability to successfully advance the idea that fairness, justice, and responsibility in the workplace and the environment are actually threats to our economic success? Since I began this piece last November the President, his cabinet and staff, and his bureaucratic appointees have waged an unrelenting attack on the progressive aspects of American governance and society.

Worse still, the true results of 20 years of de-regulation and growth by merger and acquisition have now become apparent. Fraudulent stock, reporting, and accounting practices facilitated inflated stock values, which in turn helped corporate brass to gain obscenely fabulous pay and compensation packages. When the magicians' spell was broken by the reality of financial insolvency, the damage had already been done. Bluntly put, the elite of corporate governance robbed middle-class America. These princes and dukes of industry understood the impending denouement and shamelessly ransacked the assets and reserves of their institutions, leaving ordinary investors not only undefended but also holding the bill for their ill-gotten and undeserved executive compensation.

American culture and American commerce is now corruptive, and all of us are corrupted. Most Americans are comfortable with the idea that we now judge all human endeavors and activities first as business prospects. Our memory is so short that we seem to have already forgotten that the progressive laws and programs that are disappearing from America were a direct reaction to the abuses of big business, big money, and big influence. The anti-trust laws, the several labor movements, and the environmental movements all shared the common realization, widely understood, that without restrictions and limits, industry, finance, and trade will abuse and exploit their power. For a very brief time America was in the vanguard of environmental responsibility, and of workplace dignity, safety, and fairness. What happened?

The old saying goes: "nothing succeeds like success;" the new reality can be re-worded as: "nothing can succeed now but success." And success is defined as market share, leverage, and profitability. America did participate with other responsibility-oriented societies in advancing universal rights and environmental awareness. For a short while we accepted the truth that environmental responsibility is a necessary and legitimate cost of doing business and enacted that truth through regulation. Federal laws regarding the workplace and the environment created a level playing field for business, subjecting all to the same requirements, accomplishing what industry would never "voluntarily" initiate. Of course this playing field begins and ends at our shores and the disparity in height of our field to many others around the world is significant."

Sorry for the length of the excerpt. Just to show that even invisible schmucks get what's going on.

Renting is just the modern term for serfdom.

The prevalence of rental property -- along with easy mortgages/borrowing -- drives cost of "ownership property" up. It has this effect because the cost of owning real estate is not fully subject to the pricing dictated by supply/demand.

If the going rate of homes were subject to the FULL earning demographic and very limited availability of indentured servitude (the modern mortgage), the price would drop to sensible levels in relation to income.

We didn't choose to join the "ownership society". Our private pensions were switched to 401Ks by our employers, so that they could wipe their hands of responsibility to us after our productive years are over. And we have no brokers to call. We have no power over how our 401Ks are invested. I personally would like my 401K to be invested in a solar energy panel factory. Let me try to call Vanguard and request that!

Americans need to be class conscious, and in some ways they are, but try to convince them to give up begging our politicians for favors, or to vote for non-corporate politicians. You can look at these progressive websites to see how well that goes over.

That's the owership society. The company store model. They got us where they want us now hopefully it will occur to more and more of "us" that we outnumber them by thousands to one and we'll organize and oust the lot. I say hopefully because it's just as likely they'll succeed in turning us against one another in this too.

DKML - Is it even in the interests of most of the wealthy to destroy society?

No more than it is in the interests of a heroin addict to keep getting another hit... and another hit... until the very end... Is it in their interests then?

Is it even in the interests of most of the wealthy to destroy society? This ideology is suicidial for all involved regards of temporary rewards. Of course after watching the major candidates last night I realize although with dificulty the collective nature of delusion.

JOSO: Extremely interesting concept! Where does the 4% number come from?

I would take this one step further as to why it is possible for the "powers that be" to be able to act as they do. It goes beyond not having a conscience. I don't know where this concept fits in the scheme of things, but let's call it "The Chosen Ones" or "Selective Conscience" for the sake of discussion.

What I see is a rationalization of evil acts by The Chosen Ones against "The "Others" as being OK because The Others are less than human and only exist to serve The Chosen Ones. With this mode of thinking and feeling, any atrocity is possible. What we are seeing today in America is nothing new. It is just a continuation of what has always been. The Chosen Ones will always subjugate, imprison, enslave, and exterminate The Other at their whim. This has happened throughout the history of the human race. And it seems to run in never ending cycles and circles.

Will the cycle ever be broken? Don't know. Maybe Global Climate Change, Peak Oil, or the worldwide collapse of The Chosen Ones will create a new paradigm for the human race. I have a funny feeling though that there will always be those that seek entry to The Chosen Ones through the acquisition of power and priviledge.

And so it goes......

Good on ya, Naomi. I knew you would sooner or later pick up on "the ownership society," which I've been exploring with my students in the context of what Americans mean when they enthuse about "freedom" in what is their unfree society. This article will make a very nice footnote to my lectures -- and a caution that Harpo is quickly catching up with his hero, Bush.

Until we fully recognize the diabolical nature of the people now at the helm of our nation, we will be helpless to unite to overcome the disaster we are creating. A disturbing piece that gets at the root of this can be found here:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski.htm

"...Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.

And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools.

Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.

You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience, that they seldom even guess at your condition.

In other words, you are completely free of internal restraints, and your unhampered liberty to do just as you please, with no pangs of conscience, is conveniently invisible to the world.

You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences will most likely remain undiscovered.

How will you live your life?

What will you do with your huge and secret advantage, and with the corresponding handicap of other people (conscience)?

The answer will depend largely on just what your desires happen to be, because people are not all the same. ...

Provided you are not forcibly stopped, you can do anything at all.
If you are born at the right time, with some access to family fortune, and you have a special talent for whipping up other people's hatred and sense of deprivation, you can arrange to kill large numbers of unsuspecting people. With enough money, you can accomplish this from far away, and you can sit back safely and watch in satisfaction. [...]

Crazy and frightening - and real, in about 4 percent of the population...."

Recognize anyone? We have a huge challenge facing us if we are to confront the pathology now controlling our nation.

Sorry, but if you want to get your own home, the first step is moving to a place where you can afford a home (such as outside any major city). Unless you make a lot of money, you'll also need a spouse or partner to get the initial loan. You may have to start small, or with a fixer-upper, but in the Midwest, for example, it is still possible for most people to get their own place for well under $100K. On the other hand, living single in the large city, you're probably going to rent forever as a trade-off for culture and nightlife.

Paul Bramscher wrote,

"Why would renting ever be better? It perpetuates serfdom, confers no tax advantage, and offers nothing to pass on to children, younger relatives — or charity — upon death of the owner...."

Well, in some cities, renting is so much less costly than owning, that considerable amounts of money can go into the bank or other inventments instead of upkeep and taxes on a house. And, in a market where the house is declining in value, renting is definitely advantageous.

As a 50-year old in an area where the "bubble" never came, and rented until less than two years ago, I don't regret renting at all. I sure had a lot more money in the bank, and was free of debt. but now, I'm one broken sewer or toppled retaining wall away from emptying the savings account or going even deeper in debt. So, I never understood this emotional appeal of home "ownership" - for most people, doesn't the bank actually own it?

And, as far as the family home I grew up in, when my folks got old and infirm, they sold the house and the nursing home took nearly all the proceeds of it. Bye-bye! the stuff about "serfdom" is surely a bit of hyperbole, isn't it?

Naomi Klein - Thank you for this excellent article!

I'm glad CD readers like Naomi Klein, but the personal fawning gets a little sugary.
If I were a professional writer I'd listen to my critics more than my groupies, since they might occasionally offer suggestions for editorial improvement.

One minor quibble I have is the phrase "sub-prime crisis". Crisis "anything" is a problematic framing. It tends to approach the problem as some sort of unpreventable, unforeseen, and depersonalized phenomena. Like an act of nature or biology. It also suggests alarmist undertones. The sub-prime "thing" is no more a crisis than the S&L's. These problems were seen in advance, deliberately instigated, ignored while they were being set up for failure, and go much further than sub-prime proper.

Whoever came up with the phrase "predatory lending" gets a cigar.

Why would renting ever be better? It perpetuates serfdom, confers no tax advantage, and offers nothing to pass on to children, younger relatives -- or charity -- upon death of the owner. I'm not referring just to single-residential homes, but also condos in the city, etc. Is it a matter of upkeep? You pay for that, one way or the other, anyway.

The solution to the ownership society (the top 1%) can be one of two ways, which perhaps overlap greatly in destination though not in means. (a) Advocating for a Jeffersonian ideal of the land freeholder, so long as the price is VERY low relative to salary, to the point that many/most people don't need to encumber a mortgage at all. (b) Or else the abolition of the concept of private property.

95% of mortgages are being paid on time - the ones that aren't will soon offer some nice bargains for the rest of us.

Not everyone is cut out to be a homeowner - renting is sometimes the answer.

So, Naomi, take a deep breath. This too shall pass.

The benefits of owning assets and being master of your own ship aren't going away. As our society cruises toward a breakdown in its ability to continue with huge inter-generational income transfers (social security, medicare, etc...)most folks with half a brain are making plans to see to their own needs.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession.

I'm not referring to squatters, but to the ownership society. Ultimately, their "right" to own is predicated on an underlying coercive defense of it.

Most people just aren't saavy enough, cannot deal in large numbers, don't understand puts/selling-short, have much less insider/sector knowledge, etc. to really make good on the market. Given the various busts, it seems that the publicly-traded aspect is a mixed bag indeed.

As for purchasing a home, the middle-class doesn't "purchase" a home. Rather, it enters into career-long servitude to mortgage lenders -- the ownership society.

I often wonder if some clever monkey has misplaced the little word "of" again in their cute little slogan. (That'd make it "Ownership Of Society", if I'm being a little vague)