Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- More Damning Evidence Points to Pesticide as Cause of Mass Bee Deaths
- Nobel Peace Prize Jury Under Investigation
- 'Gasland' Film Director Arrested at US Capitol Hearing
- The Cancerous Politics and Ideology of the Susan G. Komen Foundation
- A Journey To The End Of Empire: It Is Always Darkest Right Before It Goes Completely Black
Popular content
Today's Top News
Free Market Ideology is Far from Finished
But with Wall Street rescued by government intervention, there's never been a better time to argue for collectivist solutions
Whatever the events of this week mean, nobody should believe the overblown claims that the market crisis signals the death of "free market" ideology. Free market ideology has always been a servant to the interests of capital, and its presence ebbs and flows depending on its usefulness to those interests.
During boom times, it's profitable to preach laissez faire, because an absentee government allows speculative bubbles to inflate. When those bubbles burst, the ideology becomes a hindrance, and it goes dormant while big government rides to the rescue. But rest assured: the ideology will come roaring back when the bailouts are done. The massive debts the public is accumulating to bail out the speculators will then become part of a global budget crisis that will be the rationalisation for deep cuts to social programmes, and for a renewed push to privatise what is left of the public sector. We will also be told that our hopes for a green future are, sadly, too costly.
What we don't know is how the public will respond. Consider that in North America, everybody under the age of 40 grew up being told that the government can't intervene to improve our lives, that government is the problem not the solution, that laissez faire was the only option. Now, we are suddenly seeing an extremely activist, intensely interventionist government, seemingly willing to do whatever it takes to save investors from themselves.
This spectacle necessarily raises the question: if the state can intervene to save corporations that took reckless risks in the housing markets, why can't it intervene to prevent millions of Americans from imminent foreclosure? By the same token, if $85bn can be made instantly available to buy the insurance giant AIG, why is single-payer health care - which would protect Americans from the predatory practices of health-care insurance companies - seemingly such an unattainable dream? And if ever more corporations need taxpayer funds to stay afloat, why can't taxpayers make demands in return - like caps on executive pay, and a guarantee against more job losses?
Now that it's clear that governments can indeed act in times of crises, it will become much harder for them to plead powerlessness in the future. Another potential shift has to do with market hopes for future privatisations. For years, the global investment banks have been lobbying politicians for two new markets: one that would come from privatising public pensions and the other that would come from a new wave of privatised or partially privatised roads, bridges and water systems. Both of these dreams have just become much harder to sell: Americans are in no mood to trust more of their individual and collective assets to the reckless gamblers on Wall Street, especially because it seems more than likely that taxpayers will have to pay to buy back their own assets when the next bubble bursts.
With the World Trade Organisation talks off the rails, this crisis could also be a catalyst for a radically alternative approach to regulating world markets and financial systems. Already, we are seeing a move towards "food sovereignty" in the developing world, rather than leaving access to food to the whims of commodity traders. The time may finally have come for ideas like taxing trading, which would slow speculative investment, as well as other global capital controls.
And now that nationalisation is not a dirty word, the oil and gas companies should watch out: someone needs to pay for the shift to a greener future, and it makes most sense for the bulk of the funds to come from the highly profitable sector that is most responsible for our climate crisis. It certainly makes more sense than creating another dangerous bubble in carbon trading.
But the crisis we are seeing calls for even deeper changes than that. The reason these junk loans were allowed to proliferate was not just because the regulators didn't understand the risk. It is because we have an economic system that measures our collective health based exclusively on GDP growth. So long as the junk loans were fuelling economic growth, our governments actively supported them. So what is really being called into question by the crisis is the unquestioned commitment to growth at all costs. Where this crisis should lead us is to a radically different way for our societies to measure health and progress.
None of this, however, will happen without huge public pressure placed on politicians in this key period. And not polite lobbying but a return to the streets and the kind of direct action that ushered in the New Deal in the 1930s. Without it, there will be superficial changes and a return, as quickly as possible, to business as usual.
122 Comments so far
Show AllThe market is NOT the answer.
But the government is NOT the answer either.
The answer is to be found in the BALANCE - between the market, the state, and the needs and desires of the people.
The "state" only exists to serve the people. It has no other reason. We made it--we can unmake it.
The only question being how much of their bullshit will we tolerate first?
It would apapear to be endless. Everythingness.
"The most common way people give up their power is by believing that they do not have any." Alice Walker
Ultimately, it is we the people who must accept responsibility for our governance, and we have been lax and disinterested in doing so for far too long. All the statistical evidence shows that this nation is creeping towards corporate control of our governing process through the medium of money while our citizenry sits, sated and stupid, staring at a TV purchased on credit, stuffing our faces with unhealthy and overpriced food, while the middle class shrinks more each year and out children are not educated beyond what skills are needed to work fast food jobs.
Our legislators sell themselves to corporations in order to get elected, then work for those very same entities while planning their retirements to six and seven figure jobs as lobbyists, yet one reads, time and again, here and elsewhere, from the very people most necesary to effect change, that we must continue to support this rancid system by trusting the Democratic Party. This despite overwhelming evidence that this is myth, that the democrats no longer work for the working class, the middle class, but are owned by the same folks who own the other major party.
This will continue as long as we allow it to do so, and not one minute longer.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, its the only thing that ever has."
Margaret Meade
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
" All the statistical evidence shows that this nation is creeping towards corporate control of our governing process through the medium of money ... "
Creeping? More like an out of control juggernaut.
"This will continue as long as we allow it to do so, and not one minute longer."
And it will continue as long as " ... our citizenry sits, sated and stupid, staring at a TV purchased on credit, stuffing our faces with unhealthy and overpriced food, while the middle class shrinks more each year and out children are not educated beyond what skills are needed to work fast food jobs."
I'm afraid you hold out more hope than I do, ardee, but I like the way you think.
-- EKATON --
Excellent Post and thanks for those great quotes. I really believe what you are saying here is that we can, just a smattering of us shake things up. And man they need some shaking up! The very idea that we are about to throw 700 billion clams into a rat hole of derivitive creating, swap smoke and mirror financiers is absolutely astounding. This is the 'shadow economy'. not the real economy of products and commodities. Why not throw the 700 billion into our real economy! Like a poster above said, into mass transit, infrastructure, health care, education. This is not what it seems. There is more at play here. This has the stink of the rush to pass the Patriot Act about it. We are giving dictatorial powers to the Secretary of the Treasury! It is throwing good money after bad! I believe that we on the 'left' the progressives, the socialists have much in common with our bretheren and sisters on the libertarian side and with folks on the conservation right as well. I think by this 'small' coalition coming together we can really prevent this slide into a government run by corporations and Wall Street Financiers from happening. If only we could somehow get along and organize. fast....
@Rico
"It is throwing good money after bad! I believe that we on the 'left' the progressives, the socialists have much in common with our bretheren and sisters on the libertarian side and with folks on the conservation right as well. I think by this 'small' coalition coming together we can really prevent this slide into a government run by corporations and Wall Street Financiers from happening. If only we could somehow get along and organize. fast...."
Learn from the populists and the anti Imperalist league from the turn of the 20th century. Do a google search and keep talking about this to your friend and neighbors and on the internet.
I have a deep and dire fear of Libertarianism. I would urge you to investigate it thoroughly before seeking alliances with those who profess its credos.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Libertarians yes trust the market WAY too much. Paleo-cons OTH DON'T trust the elite financier class and have a pretty right on analysis of problems with "fiat currency, and the Federal Reserve, and further they distrust corporate globalists every bit as much as we do. Despite their many problems with things like homophobia, anti choice, and immigration views, and the whole culture war at a deep level I think many of them actual share in many ways the Green vision of returning more to a localist direct democracy village oriented way of life. IMO they are better allies than corporate globalists like Hillary Clinton and her friends, YMMV, shrug. I suggest going over to digg.com and WATCHING some of the dialog between the hard left activists and Ron Paul supports, it's VERY interesting and thought provoking. Also check out this essay showing many similarites between 60s SDS activism and paleo-con positions.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/may/19/00009/
If we don't all come out of our mental enclaves and fight back together soon in a populist way it's going to get VERY ugly IMO. And note I DON'T say this as a conservative at all but rather as a hard left tree sitter who was arrested for locking down to a logging gate.
That's a great idea. The truth is the so-called "free" market is really RIGGED. No market is really "free" as government always has to subsidize it somewhere along the lines. The current market is a perfect example. If the market were really free, government wouldn't be bailing out Wall $treet to begin with.
To me it really goes back to that poisonous and confusing modifier "free." Propagandists long ago found that a good proportion of the population find this four-letter word almost mesmerizing, producing within them a predictable pleasurable sensation such that any pabulum associated with it is made more palatable.
As no one today assumes humans are free from the laws of physics, or the requirements of the natural world, the best interpretation of "free," when the word is used by itself without further clarification, appears to be something such as "free from the power and influence of other human individuals, including, and most importantly, individuals within a government." Since in a densely populated society with a developed economy people are increasingly interconnected and influence each other in uncountable ways, and as freedom is really a function of independence from other people, it seems it would be best achieved by isolation such as that found in the Amazonian jungles, not by individuals striving to secure a piece of the American dream in the heart of the US political/economic/social system.
Also, it appears that individuals outside of government can influence one's life just as much as those within the government, in part because such individuals can influence individuals within the government and in part because of economic power (also in part because such individuals can escape from governmental punishment for breaking rules because of such economic power). It is no less an infringement on freedom of individual X when another individual Y limits X's choices when Y is a private individual or representing a private entity as when Y is a government official.
The sum total of freedom of all members of society seems to be more of a function of the interconnectedness of society and the level of control of the government is really not necessarily what determines the overall level of freedom, though the government may manage to determine how control and freedom is distributed among the individuals in the society in the zero sum game. But the stubborn myth of the sum total of freedom being determined by the level of government control persists in the US (including the myth of the free market, which assumes that no market participants can accumulate significant power), as it had its origin in romantic pioneer myths and it is perpetuated by the powerful elite economic players as they use it as a propaganda club when they try to prevent non-elites from joining together, whether in labor unions or in government, to be able to wield economic and political power that competes with the power of the elites.
>> it makes most sense for the bulk of the funds to come from the highly profitable sector that is most responsible for our climate crisis
Yes! Whatever arrangments are made re drilling/extraction shopuld include specifying the responsibilities for cleaning up the mess left afterwards -- and those who make the profit should be the ones who pay.
Ms Klein
I am trying to recall the last time I noticed a mention of you in the streets rather than telling others to go to the streets. I know that you sell books and give talks on them and sign them for the people that buy, and your idea is interesting. But telling people to in a sense 'revolt' may not be the most prudent thing for them to do; unless you are willing to lead them 'in the streets'.
You are an attractive face with an attractive idea. Tell us: where are you leading the next confrontation? We'll all follow your lead
gikady
Naomi Klein is a Canadian born to American parents. Canada is holding an election on October 14. Canada is divided into 308 ridings (ie voting district). Tom King is running as the NDP candidate in the riding of Guelph. Naomi Klein is one of the people trying to help get Tom King ( tomking.ca ) elected. Then again Father-in-law Stephen Lewis is also pushing to elect Tom King.
http://theontarion.ca/viewarticle.php?id_pag=1757
Naomi Klein is also involved with the Independent Jewish Voices (Canada) - which is a group of Jewish Canadians pissed off at some of the things Israel is doing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS0lVVpXjn0
In Canada, Naomi Klein votes NDP.
But, in Canada, Klein's husband (Avi Lewis) and father-in-law (Stephen Lewis) are more famous than she is. That is why you don't hear much of what she does on the ground.
The Lewis family have been involved with the NDP before it even was the NDP.
You have made my point: her husband and in-laws are 'doing' something, Ms Klein is pushing them on, so to speak. She is not running. In a sense she is safe.
Now this does not mean that I disagree with her idea or her main thesis. Her comments are like Scahill, Zinn, Chomsky, Postman, Pilger, Hedges, Frank, Nevins, or Chalmers Johnson as they all make a point or two, and that seems to be the end of where they go with the idea, except to say, " We must take back our democracy!'. Something is missing.
It appears trivial. superficial and only educates either those already awake, or those in a bit of a slumber. What perhaps is needed more is to swing or teach those who cannot hear or see. And that is a a much more difficult problem and the problem that is needful of a solution which calls for a different approach.
gikady
Which is, specifically , what?
Thank you gikady. Now I know whar word dolt means.
When Naomi writes that only people going to the streets may change situation she does not mean that she will be the leader. Your comments and following "disscussion" are senseless because they are off the topic.
People WILL come to the streets as soon as they understand what is in store for them if current economic system will continue unchallenged. It happened in 1640 in England, in 1789 in France, in 1917 in Russia and then elsewhere when people came in the streets en mass and with arms.
All American indoctrination of masses was directed to introduce the totally false idea that evil individuals lead people into the evil diractions, whereas good individuals lead people in the good direction. Evidently you and people like you who answered your challenge are products of such an indoctrination. But reality is something quite different.
Big problems are always solved not with the Big words but with the Big blood. You wait and see. Or you flee. Or you act.
You are quite perceptive and have followed the logic of the situation. Now, have the courage to state the "What?' asked of you below. But you may want to be careful as a number of people may not have reached the obvious conclusions that you imply.
gikady
Now this does not mean that I disagree with her idea or her main thesis. Her comments are like Scahill, Zinn, Chomsky, Postman, Pilger, Hedges, Frank, Nevins, or Chalmers Johnson as they all make a point or two, and that seems to be the end of where they go with the idea, except to say, " We must take back our democracy!'. Something is missing.
yes people like you !!!!
What will you contribution be? you want them to carry you over the goal line too?
To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Klein is not just preaching to the converted, she is pointing out the type of scams that the right tend to use. If we know what is coming, then we can prepare for it.
Klein's skill is as a writer, though I don't rule out either her or Avi running for office in the near future. I think that it is slightly more likely that Klein will run for office than Avi just because the NDP are trying to recruit more women.
Those that lead us in the street use the ideas of Klein, Chomsky, Linda McQuaig et al. Those who lead us in the street can give a more rousing speech than Klein can so far.
Naomi Klein cannot even give as good a speech as her father-in-law - yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EkIQBmJ_VM
Is the NDP the Canadian "3rd Party", so to speak? And I don't mean 3rd in the sense of being less significant but in the sense of being the relatively new kid on the block?
http://www.altstuff.com/federal.htmlphi
Canada has a lot more than three parties. That is why they have a more representative form of govt then we do. And teh prime Minister answers to Parliament.
It is the same way (maybe not as many parties)in most of EU.
There fore, when people say that a third party wil "ruin everything"--au contraire@
If things keep going the way they are going, the NDP will be the second party.
ahhh... the spinner in action... in it's purity.
Thank you Naomi. That those who would commit to humanity over corporatism and who would also willingly speak their mind is rare. That those same corporatists who are most affected by your truth would so quickly attack you... is understandable.
They have so much to lose.
"Dont follow leaders, watch the parking meters."
There is a certain naivete in your words, along with a deal of childishness, frankly. If you wait to be led you do this nation a disservice. You rail against a person whose background you do not know, whose committments you fail to understand, whose actions you have not researched yet you. yourself do nothing at all....except bitch it woud seem.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Gikady -
What is your point? Naomi Klein does a great service to us with her books and commentary.
I haven't read your name (or mine) in reports of street demonstrations either. If you had actually been to many street demonstrations, you would know that we are lucky if the demonstration gets a few words mention in the press. They never roll the credits for participants.
Joe
Love Naomi Klein, thank you. But I fear the government will simply turn it's back on us-again-when this is over and claim that any further 'intervention' would be socialist and not allow the unfettered capitalism they themselves privately feed upon. They have never had a problem acting in a dual role and, like Bush, will simply adopt a calvinist position of denial and paint it as gospel when telling us we have to seek our own healthcare reform and all the rest they won't touch. Then they'll wrap it all up in a flag and sing of eagles soaring, rugged american individualism and all the rest. All we need to look at is the chicago school perversion, et al: the only time Friedman's economic ideology has ever work is at the end of a gun prodding its prey over a cliff towards the IMF, Ford Foundation and all the rest of the duplicitous self-serving Bernaisian gang. When this settles, they will simply revert back to denial like a dysfunctional patient and refuse treatment. Oh, please, may I be wrong.
I suspect you are right about the government's response, but I wonder if Ms. Klein's point may have been that it might be a bit more difficult for them to sell us the Friedman horse manure we have so compliantly wallowed around in lo these many years, and that, perhaps, this episode may be the one that brings enough of us out of Plato's cave that we won't allow them to get away with it.
Ah, one can only hope.
I was just about to search the web for Naomi's thoughts and here they are. Thanks. I have only modest hopes. I hope we can do somewhat better than 'superficial changes.' Instead of carbon trading, direct taxation of greenhouse gas emitting fuels would quickly move us to better energy sources with less need for foreign fuels and the drag on our economy to pay for it; and we could cut middle class income taxes or even eliminate them. A fraction of the money we spend on bailouts and wars could give us fabulous medicare for all. I just turned 60. Good luck to all of you out there who are approaching that age and have to pay for your own health insurance like I do.
Thank you , Naomi. She can finally get a word in (unlike on Maher's show)
I just want to know WHY--WHY people, are you unable/unwilling to do anythign about this. Nobody can do it alone. But where the hell did US citizens get the idea that, "well, thats just how it is", or 'well what can we do"?? I just dont get it.
We could actually plan somethibng right here. Anybody?
So, they pull a shock on you again and you know it--adn you just say "oh well". We do not have to let this happen.The US can be whatever we want it to be. CMON AMERICA!! FOR THE LIVES OF POOR PEOPLE SLEEPING IN THE STREETS TONITE!
Or are the "Merkin" people just going to roll over and play dead. This isnt capitalism. it is an oligarchy, and it is harming the entire planet.It is uncosntitutitonal, but, even a word about impeaching bush or charging him with murder and everyone goes, "oh, we cant, lets just wait for the election".
Even if you think Obama is the "leader of a broad progressive coalition"--what good is he going to be able to do if all the citizens are numb??
These modest proposals have been done--and the govt cheats again. It is the entire economic system. I am just in despair about the lack of a response from so-called "progressives".
Its not a right. Its a responsibility that peoel died for. Better dead than "our collective health based exclusively on GDP". But, maybe that's just me.
I feel your pain and I share it.
If you happen to have the time to read something brilliant, albeit fairly long, look at this lecture
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/09/myth-america-a-stand-up-tragedy/
I am actually beginning to wonder whether they habitually add Valium to the drinking water in the US..or else it's just the complete lack of comparison to and ignorance of the quality of life of other places in the world that makes them so complacent?
Greetings from Europe!
Where in Europe--give me a pleasant memory...
Thanks for link. I'll have to read it later. Stil have touch of flu and need to LIE down ( as my dad would say--not LAY down!!)
It may not be a drug, just 'amusing ourselves to death' A professor at Boston U once wrote me a note to an email saying, ..."we suffer today from a virus of trivialization'. And that is what bothers me about even the people like Ms Klein who seem to pick a small point, brutalize it, and never move on to what may be more complete an answer.
gikady
Araquin,
It could just be the fluoride. The Nazis used it in the concentration camps to pacify the prisoners. After the war, when Nazis were brought to the U.S., they turned us on to the idea of adding it to our water systems. But there's also a lot of other toxic substance floating around as well. Our drinking water is very vulnerable to added poisons without a doubt.
The Enron Nation Runs Aground
Just taking a cruise on the Enron nation
as It floats in misfortune on a sea of despair
buoyed up on the blue but leaking red
First class is knowing what’s not been said
For we’re the Enron nation
on uncharted New American Century seas
and we have a heavy load these days
with riffraff bailouts called free market life risk rafts
for the needy few
who call big time plunder
a market slightly asunder
not to mention the awe of
payloads called ‘freedom’ delivered by stealth
the short sold pay days for the empires’ health
Make way for the ice and the gold and the bergs
We’re goin down while our bail out bandits
float trillion dollar life boats from the the seething trough
as the thieving bubble baron bandits make out like the Visigoths
as the new Rome wells up in public plundered purse
with no anchors to slow the Enron nation’s curse
Our course is set by back room bankers boys and such
who scheme up fraud based finance
with clever cons so opaque they don’t need pawns
Their debt based skirmish is the starter for a better mulch
like victims for soil,
for our life blood is greed oiled with gushers of sleeze..
Oil that is gushing out like avarice on the shores of need,
while the Enron nation like a predator plunder tanker......
runs aground.
thanks
"This spectacle necessarily raises the question: if the state can intervene to save corporations that took reckless risks in the housing markets, why can't it intervene to prevent millions of Americans from imminent foreclosure? By the same token, if $85bn can be made instantly available to buy the insurance giant AIG, why is single-payer health care - which would protect Americans from the predatory practices of health-care insurance companies - seemingly such an unattainable dream? And if ever more corporations need taxpayer funds to stay afloat, why can't taxpayers make demands in return - like caps on executive pay, and a guarantee against more job losses?"e
Thank you, Naomi Klein, for homing in on the right questions! Never have clear-sighted, well informed minds been a more indispensable commodity than at this fateful juncture!
Throw out all current "trade agreements".
Eliminate all income taxes, including corporate.
Impose tariffs of 200% or more on all imported goods.
We would see full employment tomorrow.
Shoot my ideas full of holes, but something similar will work.
-- EKATON --
And where would your average American do his and her shopping in that case? Most of what their beloved Wal-Mart sells them is made in China or Vietnam. And that's why it is so cheap that they can afford it.
Unless you at the same time add to your list
"Finally introduce a mandatory living wage,
reinstate unions at every workplace,
introduce annual collective bargaining agreements between employers and unions for wages in every sector,
introduce universal health care,
regulate financial markets,
put a ceiling to managers' salaries and ban stock options as part of their remuneration,
ban all trading in derivatives,
introduce the Tobin Tax"
(I am sure I left out a few others)
yours would be a recipe for the Great Depression Revisited.
And where would your average American do his and her shopping in that case? Most of what their beloved Wal-Mart sells them is made in China or Vietnam. And that's why it is so cheap that they can afford it.
Well, wouldn't that just be too damn bad that people couldn't obtain the latest useless trinkets?
Unless you at the same time add to your list
"Finally introduce a mandatory living wage,
As corporations scrambled to meet demand (for the latest useless trinkets, but more likely for real necessities, like shoes) they would bid up wages for employees with the skills to produce, and if these were not available they would scramble to train employees for the skills to produce the needed goods (like shoes).
reinstate unions at every workplace,
This might or might not evolve as demand drives production.
introduce annual collective bargaining agreements between employers and unions for wages in every sector,
See above.
introduce universal health care,
Health care and other benefits originally occurred as corporations competed for skilled labor -- please work here because we'll give you health care while our competitors do not... yet...
regulate financial markets,
Please elaborate.
put a ceiling to managers' salaries and ban stock options as part of their remuneration,
Okay. So?
ban all trading in derivatives,
Of course.
introduce the Tobin Tax"
(I am sure I left out a few others)
Okay.
yours would be a recipe for the Great Depression Revisited.
I disagree. Companies would be scrambling for employees. Full employment would occur as the wealthy invested capital heavily in domestic production because domestic products would be so much cheaper due to the huge tariffs.
Of course this flies in the face of the currently accepted paradigm of "globalization" which is nothing more than a race to the bottom for employees worldwide.
-- EKATON --
The fiscal & economic policies should reward productive enterprises - ones that generates _real_ goods, services & jobs as against ones that generate speculative wealth - based on money changing hands & legally sanctioned Ponzi schemes - where the supply of real goods stays the same, however valuations are allowed to be infalted, simply because the speculators (read as "predators") have moved in.
IMHO, all investment income must be taxed at a _much_ higher rate than income earned from goods & services. Also, new businesses that chart out to generate new goods and jobs should taxed at a lower level than the rest. (Of course, there should be checks in order that old businesses are not rebranded as new businesses to take advantage of tax concessions).
Investment/speculative should be taxed at a SOMEWHAT higher rate than it now is. This money provides important functions in our economy, e.g. talk of attacking Iran generally brings in speculative money to raise the price of oil, thereby possibly averting a war. Regular earned income should not be taxed for the first 50 or 100,000 or so. Why discourage work? Government should get the biggest chunk of money from taxes on oil and coal consumption and other polluting energy forms. This is the best way to both decrease our dependence on foreign oil and to fight global climate change. Trying to give new businesses more than minimal tax breaks becomes a legalistic nightmare to avoid all the 'new' businesses. No legislative safeguards will work.
"It is because we have an economic system that measures our collective health based exclusively on GDP growth. So long as the junk loans were fuelling economic growth, our governments actively supported them."
True, but only because "economic growth" benefits the oligarchy at the same time as integrating the citizenry into a consumerist/corporatist culture that is sold as "beneficial". From any other angle the GDP is literally insane. We could be dying in an epidemic of cancer, but if medical and related industries show profit above a certain level (which they would certainly try to attain, if necessary with taxpayer assistance) our "collective health" would be seen as good.
The phoniness and hypocrisy of the whole concept of economic growth in real conditions is forcefully illustrated in the GDP. We need *standards* of economic, social, and environmental health and any measurement should be subsidiary.
Klein wrote:
"During boom times, it's profitable to preach laissez faire, because an absentee government allows speculative bubbles to inflate. When those bubbles burst, the ideology becomes a hindrance, and it goes dormant while big government rides to the rescue. But rest assured: the ideology will come roaring back when the bailouts are done. The massive debts the public is accumulating to bail out the speculators will then become part of a global budget crisis that will be the rationalisation for deep cuts to social programmes, and for a renewed push to privatise what is left of the public sector. We will also be told that our hopes for a green future are, sadly, too costly."
This sounds like a borrowing from Linda McQuaig's Cult of Impotence mixed in with her own Disaster Capitalism - and very likely McCain's game plan. Klein is saying (like McQuaig did before her) that the US government will argue that they can't "afford" these things because the cupboard is bare. Strangely, unlike Health Care and Education, tax cuts to the very wealthy will be considered too much of a necessity for them to do away with.
As NDP leader Jack Layton says concerning everything the big corporations don't want us to have: "Don't let them tell you it can't be done."
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=YyF3o11NtLY&feature=user
It's reassuring to hear someone repeat that "free trade" IS really an ideology, and one that repeatedly is proven to lead to disaster, yet adherents doggedly cling to their faith. I've read one libertarian pundit who says we should have let Fannie and Freddie fail, AIG go down, etc., just like any other private business. At least he's sticking to his guns. IMO American business is operating precisely as designed by the oligarchic elite that others speak of. The situation appears to be this: American business gets to operate in as reckless a manner as possible because when the stuff hits the fan, they know the taxpayer will bail them out. They know it! This is the way they think things are SUPPOSED to work. It’s all a giant sham.
In other words, if you think this is vindication, you're wasting your breath. And if you think they'll "do the right thing" because the facts are self evident, you're wrong. We have to change the system because they will not.
The ruling class and those in government who represent them don't give a shit about the working class and the working poor.
They never have. The only time they give us a second thought is when they are afraid of us.
Well, we should make them afriad of us! You know, I keep hearing how we had to do this. But the amount just keeps getting bigger, and, unmless the Dems "lay down the law" on Tuesday,(that will be the day!!) this is just another giant bail out for the rich--the biggest one of all.
Exactly. Which is why one needs parties in parliaments that they are afraid of.
Some of the first social legislation in Europe in the 19th century was, after all, enacted by Bismarck, no friend of workers at all.
Why? Because he was scared shitless that the rising Socialist and Communist movements might eventually become a menace to the rule of his class, unless he did something about their issues. So he pacified them by introducing - considering the times - fairly progressive social legislation.
A lesson.