Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCrash You Heard? Temple of Corporatism Falling
Not only has it failed - it has failed miserably. Now, as in 1929, it will take decades of high taxes and hard work just to clean up the mess it has left us with. But something good could also come of it.
On that recent Sunday evening, I read online that Lehman Brothers was going into bankruptcy. I instinctively knew that was it.
I told my sister and my wife that the stock market was going to crash the next day. It did.
The stock market crash and financial meltdown on black Monday marks the end of the unfounded faith in unregulated capitalism - the main pillar of the conservative ideology. Conservatism was the main casualty on Wall Street that day.
It now appears that America is being forced to choose between fascism and socialism. Not so fast. A little procrastination can sometimes be a virtue.
Isn't it ironic: George W. Bush and Henry Paulson telling us that a $700 billion bailout of the Wall Street moneychangers is needed because only the moneychangers who caused the problem know how to fix it?
The perpetrators must be bailed out, and their innocent victims must be punished.
In the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who guided America through the Great Depression, it's time once more to drive the moneychangers from the temple. It's time to restore moral government - government of, by and for the people. It's time to end corporatism.
Sometimes language is the best measure of real values. During the Reagan era, the vulgar phrase "human resources" crept into common usage. Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks recently used the term "human capital" twice in one column. Relegating human beings to the level of capital is the language of slavery.
For decades, American government has valued the health and wealth of business corporations over that of people.
Government is on a hair-trigger to save and protect corporations, but has refused for over a century to adopt basic health care for all human beings.
Our government operates on the notion that, if you take care of the corporations, people can fend for themselves. That's backwards. If you take care of the people, corporations will always be able to take care of themselves.
Democrats in Washington need to be very leery of the Bush/Paulson corporate bailout. First, it may not even work. Second, done wrong, it could politically tie the hands of government in addressing people problems.
Whatever happens, government should proceed full speed ahead to address our people needs.
Our government needs to repeal the global economy. Except for oil, we need very little from other countries for a robust economy that would provide middle Americans with everything they need and most of what they want. Globalism is nothing but a world-wide conspiracy against working people.
Our government needs to institute universal health care. Not only would it not cost a penny - it would save hundreds of billions of dollars annually. The only obstacle to universal health care is the special interests of insurance companies, drug companies and medical providers.
Our government needs to provide for universal education. Middle-class college students should not have to borrow a year's salary just to get a college degree. And colleges and universities need to return to education instead of free corporate job training.
Our government needs to re-regulate the utility industry. Proper government regulation of utilities would save middle Americans countless hours of studying the fine print of gas, electric, telephone and cable company plans, in addition to billions of dollars in excessive rate charges. We need to let moral and democratic government negotiate fair rates for us.
Economic populists and progressives should not look upon the current financial and economic crisis as a problem, but as an opportunity - an opportunity to restore moral and democratic government, and to complete the unfinished work of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. People first.
16 Comments so far
Show All"Except for oil," we don't need anything from the rest of the world? If we would develop alternative energy, we wouldn't need oil, either. We could, probably, survive on just what we could produce at home. (Heck, if Cuba could do it, we sure could.) Then we could continue to have diplomatic and trade relations with others, but not from a position of dependence.
Piffle. The "temple of corporatism" is not falling. It's the economy that's falling, and falling hard for most citizens. It didn't start this month either, nor did it end yesterday.
Charles Reed makes pleasing noises in preaching to the choir, but the opportunity of which he speaks is illusory. Instead, confronting us right now is the choice of which face we put on the permanent theft that the financial sector is demanding: a besuited and smooth one with an IQ in three digits (D), or a vicious and malleable one that celebrates ignorance (R).
"Democrats in Washington need to be very leery of the Bush/Paulson corporate bailout."
As some young people say, "yeah, right."
Alan MacDonald
Since you are a 'seriousprofessor', I would suggest that Reed is half right and you are half right --- and together you are exactly right.
Reed concludes with:
"Economic populists and progressives should not look upon the current financial and economic crisis as a problem, but as an opportunity - an opportunity to restore moral and democratic government, and to complete the unfinished work of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. People first."
Reed is half right because he correctly calls this crisis an opportunity coming from a problem.
Professor, you begin to fill in the second half of the solution in your opening line:
"the 'temple of corporatism' is not falling. It's the economy that's falling, and falling hard for most citizens. It didn't start this month either, nor did it end yesterday."
You are half right in saying that this problem of "the 'temple of corporatism' ... didn't start this month" --- but you would be more accurate to call it an 'empire of corporatism', and recognize that it started as long ago as when entrenched empire battled the new concept of democracy for rule of the American people in 1776.
Reed is half right in saying that democracy is the opportunity for a solution coming out of this problem/battle of empire against democracy ---- but he would be more accurate if he only referred to democracy (small d), and did not ruin his argument and credibility by incorrectly referring to it as "the unfinished work of (Democrat) Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal".
Yes democracy is the answer to this unexpected continuation of the American Revolution against the 'corporatist Empire' hiding behind the facade of it's two-party 'Vichy' government that has been aborting our democracy, liberty, freedom, and equality of a government of, by, and for men, during the last hundred years. And yes, this is an "opportunity" arising out of a crisis "problem" --- just as the original American Revolution was in defending self-rule democracy against the DUAL (political AND economic) oppression(S) of the British EMPIRE.
Corrupt, elitist, lying, murderous empire never gives up its entrenched and privileged status quo easily --- or as Raul Julia explained in "Havana" to Robert Redford why it was necessary to actually revolt against the US pawn Batista's fascist 'corporatist' regime; "They will not leave by asking NICELY".
Exactly as the current ruling-elite 'corporatist Empire' controlling the US in both the economic AND political spheres of our indivisible political economy, a 'corporatist Empire' which has used the guileful trick of taking over the political realm (and its paid 'Vichy' whore politicians) by power over 'gaming' the economic rights of our society) --- "will not leave by asking NICELY", but only by continuing the genius of the American Revolution against EMPIRE (that is always empire, by any name or disguise).
The "opportunity" that Reed speaks of in this supposedly financial "problem"/cancer of our overall political economy of governance and rule is that the original American Revolution, of democracy against empire, did not quite successfully excise the entire tumor of the cancer of empire, but left a bit of un-democratic cancer in one lung (the economic sphere of empire's crony-capitialism) and that economic cancer has come back and spread to our political lung.
Our once in a lifetime "opportunity" here and now in America is to fully excise the cancer of Empire from our founders' genius of democracy in both the political AND economic lungs of our country (as an example to the world) by continuing the American Revolution against empire in its currently disguised and deformed form of 'corporatist Empire'.
"Charles Reed is a retired civil servant and the former mayor of Waco"
and the current Mayor of Crazytown...whoop!..whooop!..whoop!!
The "Government of the USA" needs to "Repeal the Global Economy"?
what part of "Global" dont you get buddy?
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
The following should make a good complementary article, I believe.
"Game Theory: Playing Craps with Your Life, or: Some Poor Schnook with a Blog vs...Krugman!",
by Arthur Silber, powerofnarrative.blogspot.com, Sep 26 2008,
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m47533
"Our government needs to repeal the global economy."
in the way it is conceived by neoliberals.
We are now getting a taste of it at home.... anybody want to tell us what it tastes like?
Your future is crap.
The pillars supporting the "Temple of Green" are starting to crack.
Does anybody have any duct tape handy?
Yes, I have plenty of duct tape. But let's save it for the next time Bu$h makes a speech. We can tape his mouth shut and keep him from making yet a bigger fool of both himself and us as a nation. A severely muffled voice with an occasional blast of air out of his nostrils would sound much more educated than what he would have to say otherwise!
I was in agreement until I got to universal health care and education, especially when you said universal health care won't cost a penny.
I think that's what the proponents of the Iraq war said: it won't cost a penny because Iraq's oil revenue will pay for it.
We already have two insolvent entitlement programs - social security and medicare. How are we going to pay for another one?
And government-financed education is a real winner. Americans consistently rank 20th or worse in education tests administered globally.
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
You could hardly be more wrong if you tried.
To start, Social Security isn't insolvent. Never was. It might be in 2045 IF no adjustments are made, but it's running fine now. Raising or removing the income cap on FICA taxes would put the program in the black indefinitely. The Social Security "crisis" was made up bullshit by conservative Republicans to leverage their plans to privatize the program --in other words, throw megabillions into Wall Street. Into the hands of the same investment banker fraudsters who created the current meltdown and are asking for megabillions to bail them out.
Medicare as a program is where it is because it doesn't take in enough revenue for what it provides because it's a program for the poor. If it were expanded to cover everyone, it could be funded easily for less than what the average person pays for health insurance. A little progressive weighting so that the rich pay a little more so that the poor pay less would make sure it's affordable for everyone, and everyone could and would get care. The numbers have been run, and it's been proven without a doubt that a single-payer government-run health insurance program could cover every single man woman and child for billions less than what we pay now for health insurance in this country. It's a fact.
And finally, education is a problem because public schools are underfunded and the system designed to not teach anything usable in the free system. Everything you can really use is saved for the pay system, the college level. College should be free for anyone who can meet the academic requirements, period. Anyone who wants to educate themselves should be able to do so, the only requirements should be their ability and effort. The money invested in their improvement would come back a thousand fold over their lifetime in the form of greater earning ability and the resulting boost to the tax base and economy.
These things CAN be solved, the solutions are known and checked out and bulletproof. They're simply not desirable to a political ruling class that has no interest in anything that doesn't directly benefit the rich. We have a government by, of and for the people in name only, it's really a government by of and for the rich.
--
Seven years of power, the corporation claw
The rich control the government, the media, the law
To make some kind of difference, then everyone must know
Eradicate the facists, revolution will grow
The system we learn says we're equal under law
But the streets are reality, the weak and poor will fall
Let's tip the power balance, and tear down their crown
Educate the masses, we'll burn the White House down
--
Religion and sex are powerplays, manipulate the people for the money they pay
Selling skin, or selling god, the numbers look the same on the credit cards
Fighting fire with empty words
While the banks get fat
the poor stay poor
the rich get rich
and the cops get paid
to look away
as the one percent rules America
--Queensryche, "Operation: Mindcrime"
Awesome Queensryche reference!!
I'll add another one . . .
"The world is full of kings and queens
Who will blind your eyes and steal your dreams"
- Black Sabbath, "Heaven and Hell"
If I hear you correctly you are saying social security, medicare and education are all underfunded. Is that not the definition of insolvent? (Insolvent: unable to pay one's debts as they fall due, in the ordinary course of trade and business.)
By several estimates the U.S. entitlement system needs $100 trillion dollars over the next 50 years or so. That's a couple of trillion a year, which is what the government collects now in tax revenues. It would have to spend 100% of its tax revenues on just these existing entitlements for them to be solvent, unless taxes are increased to punishing levels, which would cripple the economy.
I seriously doubt that cash-strapped Americans can afford higher taxes, especially the punishing levels that would be required to make these existing entitlement programs solvent, let alone fund the entirely new and expensive entitlement of universal health care.
Oh, and did I mention that the U.S. is running an half trillion dollar annual deficit (at least that's what the government admits to; it doesn't include the Iraq war or any of these financial bailouts so far). And the country is running a three-quarter trillion dollar annual trade deficit with the rest of the world. We are hardly in a position to be contemplating spending another couple of trillion a year on nationalized health care.
Money does not determine educational success. For many years Washington D.C. has spent double the amount of money per student of any other school district and has among the poorest test results. The U.S. probably spends more per student than most countries, with equally disappointing comparative results. Government involvement in higher education is what has caused the cost to soar. Prior to government guaranteed student loans, college, at least public college, was inexpensive. Once student loans became available, the costs soared.
Finally, do you really want the government administering more of our money? Look what it just tried to do with $700 billion of it: give it to Wall Street.
Now I know why Disneyland is so popular: it houses Fantasyland.
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
The 20 countries ahead of the United States in Educational achievenent all have Public school systems. Finland consistently ranks in the top there in the PISA tests and have publicly financed Education.
Canada is in the top three in those same tests and has a Public school system.
Universal health care is something virtually every country in the world has that calls itself first world. It is in fact cheaper overall then the system in the United States and by a considerable margin. A Government can deliver it much more cheaply then can Private business.
As to Social security. Without this tens of milliosn of Americans would be living in the streets. Total costs to society would be much higher both morally and in raw dollars and cents were Social security payments simply halted.
If one really believes a privatized plan would have done better for Americans, then someone has not been paying attention.
It all comes down to what people believe the role of Government is. It my opinion that the Government in a democracy should be there to enhance the wlee being of its citizens.
Old age security, Universal health care, and education all seem to meet that criteria.
"Greed is good!"
"The only way to get rich is to make someone else poor."
Amen.
Walk in peace.