Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Follow the Money
Cure Millions of Leprosy -- or Just Give Hank Paulson a Tax Break?
Mine is a roar of admiration.
Four trillion dollars! Holy hell! I didn't even know that was possible!
U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
After all, the cost of World War II in inflation-adjusted dollars was $4 trillion. This bailout thing is just getting started, and already we've burned through that.
Without even noticing.
Certainly without rationing sugar or collecting scrap rubber or any of that nonsense.
Who's the Greatest Generation now, baby?
Admit it. You feel it too. Just imagine someone snatching your laptop off a table and throwing it, Olympic-discus style, hundreds... and hundreds... and hundreds of feet. Sure, you'd be upset (and stuck with the bill). But however briefly, you'd feel admiration for the physical feat: Look at that thing fly!
So it goes with our bailouts, wild tax cuts, and war budgets. The money in play is staggering, but everyone acts like that's something to mope about. Where's the excitement?
Often, after reading an incomprehensible dollar figure, I'll Google "What does a trillion dollars look like?" to get myself fired up. One example of where this takes you shows a million dollars (pathetic, wouldn't fill a grocery bag), a billion (interesting, I could fit it in a truck), and then a trillion. (Wow, it spreads for acres! Look at that tiny human included for scale!)
It turns out that the United States can pick up that sort of weight and just smash it down on whatever the hell we want. Like Optimus Prime with giant square green paper fists. Slam! Slam!
Yet we've committed not one trillion dollars to the incompetent and/or corrupt, but more than four trillion dollars. That's according to a report to Congress from special inspector general Neil Barofsky, the overseer of the bank bailout program.
Technically, Barofsky adds, Wall Street's IOU to you and me is at about three trillion dollars these days, since some of it's been paid back. Relieved? Don't be. As these tsunamis of public wealth pour out, ignore the slosh and focus on the order of magnitude. The entire Gross Domestic Product -- the number reflecting all wealth generated in this nation for this year -- is only $14.1 trillion. So whether the sum of our money that's now their money is $3 trillion (1/5th of all wealth generated in America in a year) or $4.7 trillion (1/3rd of all wealth generated in America in a year), it still means that, for a big chunk of the year, every single one of us was working for Goldman Sachs et al.
Barofsky's report also suggests that Wall Street's tab might ultimately work out to $24 trillion, which would be $80,000 per American, or $320,000 for a family of four. But that's, like, totally the worst-case scenario. (Still, wouldn't it be impressive? I envision huge, five-foot-cubed, shrink-wrapped pallets of dollars dropping from the sky onto my neighborhood, smashing houses, crushing cars, killing beloved pets, blasting craters into asphalt streets. Yeah!)
Smallpox and Bikinis
And yet could we employ this financial muscle in a more constructive way?
For an illuminating example, consider how we dealt with smallpox. That airborne virus, with its fevers reaching 106 F and signature pus-filled skin eruptions, was the greatest killer of man ever known.
In the 20th century, smallpox killed more people than all of that bloody century's wars combined.
In fact, if you tally the worldwide death tolls for World Wars I and II, the Korean and Vietnam wars, the Iran-Iraq war and the Mexican Revolution, the civil wars in China and Russia and Spain, and all the other wars of the last century, from Afghanistan to Zaire, the total is less than one-third of the smallpox death toll.
And that's just a single 100-year period, for a disease that disfigured Egyptian pharaohs, allied with Hernando Cortes to rout the Aztecs, left a young George Washington scarred, later stalked his Continental Army, and left Abraham Lincoln pale, weak, and dizzy as he delivered his Gettysburg Address.
And yet, in the 1960s, smallpox was targeted by visionary public health experts -- and in just 10 years it was gone. An excellent new book by D.A. Henderson, the doctor who led the effort, tells the story: Smallpox: The Death of a Disease.
This was a signature achievement, up there with defeating the Nazis or walking on the moon. To track down a virus in every corner of the planet, encircle it with vaccinations and kill it… I began to wonder how many five-foot-cubed pallets of Benjamins the world had brought to bear. After all, this was mankind's greatest killer -- the Joker to our Batman, Lex Luthor to our Superman. The amounts of cash flung about must have been awe-inspiring.
Chasing down the cost of the 10-year eradication campaign was not easy. Eventually, Dr. Henderson himself steered me to a 1,450-page official history of smallpox maintained as a PDF in a sleepy corner of the website of the World Health Organization (WHO). The answer, hidden away on page 1,366: $300 million.
Three hundred million?
Not trillion? Not even billion?
Such a tiny sum of money for such a tremendous feat? It's like hitting a home run at Fenway Park using a chopstick for a bat.
The price paid to defeat humanity's greatest foe wouldn't cover a 24-hour day of Iraqi combat operations. In Wall Street bailout terms, there's no way to even talk about sums this tiny. To do that, we have to go the level of overcompensated individuals. So, sure, $300 million could eradicate history's greatest killer of humans -- yet the same sum wouldn't cover the bonus pool for the executives of the insurance company AIG after its great meltdown. It's less than what just one man, Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld, pulled down over the past 5 years.
It's even more striking if you remember that this was a price tag for a worldwide program whose cost was shared by multiple governments; and also a total cost over a 10-year period. To think about it in annual budgeting terms, it works out to $30 million a year. Which is approaching the ridiculous. Hell, the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue for 2006 featured a blond in a bikini of diamonds worth $30 million.
We Fight Over There So We Don't Have to Fight Here
These are sad economic times, sadder still when you consider the tsunamis of wealth going to waste: four trillion dollars for Wall Street welfare queens; somewhere from one to three trillion for anyone affluent enough to own a top hat and a monocle; another trillion or so (and counting) for our current military escapades abroad.
But it's also just damned exciting. Because, frankly, it's a helluva lot of money we have to play with! Even now, at one of our darkest economic hours, we could be performing miracles with the spare change left behind the national couch cushions.
If you're an engineering type, you might prefer that those miracles involve shoring up our creaking national infrastructure. Good! Go write your own article.
I'm a doctor so I'll stick with medical possibilities. Since the smallpox triumph, public health experts have been inspired to target other diseases for eradication. One is polio, a virus known for paralyzing a minority of its unluckiest victims, among them former president Franklin D. Roosevelt; two others are Guinea worm and leprosy, plagues dating back to the Bible.
The World Health Organization and the volunteer service organization Rotary International have spent two decades tracking down and vaccinating billions of people against polio. They calculate that they've prevented the paralysis of five million children worldwide.
Just this May, a 10-day frenzy saw the immunization of more than 222 million children in Africa and Asia. It was possible to watch the campaigners' march through Africa on Google Maps. Among the foot soldiers in that vaccine war: Ali Mao Moallim, who more than three decades ago became the last person on Earth to contract wild smallpox. (Others have caught smallpox in the laboratory since.)
Think about that: inoculating 222 million children in 10 days. For comparison, there are only about 80 million children in the entire United States.
Imagine inoculating every child in America in 10 days. In 10 days, we couldn't even get every voter in Florida to figure out whom they chose for president.
Not so long ago, polio roamed the globe, and each day would paralyze 1,000 children. Today, there are only some hundreds of cases each year, mostly in underdeveloped areas of Africa and Asia.
The entire 21-year slog has so far cost five billion dollars. By comparison, Wall Street executive bonuses last year -- not salaries, but bonuses, for a single year that saw the whole mess collapse and the taxpayers handed the broom -- came to $18 billion.
If you look at the polio campaign costs on an annual basis, it's about $240 million a year, or less per year than it has cost to occupy Iraq per day.
The United States has been polio-free since 1994. But if the polio campaign falters, the virus could return. This, unlike Iraqi military operations, truly is a case of having to fight them overseas so as not to face them at home.
And why would the polio campaign falter? Because there are huge demands on the public purse and we must spend judiciously; otherwise, Wall Street CEOs would have to pay for their own $87,000 area rugs and $68,000 credenzas. (What's a credenza? I had to look it up. Turns out it's that sideboard thing you only see in the movies, where Wall Street villains keep their decanters of fine whiskey for toasting the paralysis of small children.)
Casting Out the Fiery Serpent
Consider another life-saving success-for-pennies program that's evolving right now, in fact racing against polio to be the next public health triumph. We are on verge of eradicating Guinea worm, a parasite believed to be the "fiery serpent" that torments the Hebrews during the Exodus. Go read your Bible, it's in there.
A female Guinea worm matures in its victim's gut, growing two feet long. Then, over a year marked by cramping, nausea, and fevers, it burrows out of the intestines, down through a leg, and to the skin surface. A blister forms accompanied by a burning sensation -- hence the "fiery serpent." The agonized victim immerses the leg in water for relief; on cue, the worm releases a cloud of larvae. Others drink downstream, and the cycle repeats itself.
Treatment involves digging into a blister to seize the worm's head, then extracting it over days to weeks by wrapping it around a stick -- a therapeutic image that some argue may have inspired the Rod of Asclepius, the physician's symbol of a snake coiled around a staff.
Guinea worm still plagued millions when former President Jimmy Carter organized a charitable foundation and challenged his advisers to suggest a disease to stamp out. They nominated Guinea worm: Humans are its only host, so if the cycle is broken in people, the parasite will be gone.
Thanks to larvicides, nylon water filters, and education, we are almost there. Today, there are fewer than 5,000 recorded Guinea worm cases in six African countries. The total cost of this 23-year campaign to date has been $225 million. Or less than $10 million a year.
This sort of chump change is so small, you can't even talk outsize salaries; you have to focus on the tax breaks on those outsize salaries. So, consider that the following celebrities have saved the following estimated sums each year on their taxes, courtesy of Bush-era tax cuts: movie producer Jerry Bruckheimer, $5.8 million; L.A. Laker Kobe Bryant, $1.6 million; rapper 50 Cent, $6 million; real estate mogul Donald Trump, $1.2 million.
Imagine a sort of a Congressional reverse earmark -- one that canceled the Bush tax cuts only for Bruckheimer, out of punishment for Armageddon and Pearl Harbor -- and steered the resulting millions to disease control efforts. Really, would any of these men notice the slightest changes in their lives if they returned to paying Clinton-era tax rates?
When Curing Millions of Leprosy is "Failure"
But wait. Aren't some of these public health campaigns wasteful failures? Sure they are. Let's look at one public health failure: The drive to eliminate leprosy.
Caught early enough, leprosy can be cured today with the antibiotics dapsone, rifampicin, and clofazimine. Over 25 years -- courtesy of Novartis pharmaceuticals and the Japanese Nippon Foundation -- these medicines have been handed out for free, and have cured more than 14 million people of the disease. They work so well that the WHO now recommends integrating the world's 250,000 known leprosy patients into primary-care settings, just like those with any other illness.
Treatment is so effective, in fact, that several years ago the WHO launched a campaign to eliminate leprosy entirely. Ultimately it sank 15 years and about $200 million into the project. (I cannot find a link for the $200 million figure, provided to me by WHO officials in e-mail correspondence.)
But there's a logistical nightmare when trying to eliminate leprosy. Other targets such as smallpox, polio, and Guinea worm exist in one reservoir only: sick humans.
Not so with Mycobacterium leprae, a bacterium that attacks skin and nerve cells. Even today, we don't know everywhere this bug lives. It has been found in the oddest places: in armadillos in Louisiana and Texas, in the noses of healthy people in some parts of the world, and even in some soil samples.
Such a bug was never an easy target. Even so, in 1991, the World Health Organization vowed its "elimination" -- and then defined "elimination" to mean less than 1 case per 10,000 people. At such a low background level, it was hoped, the disease might dwindle into irrelevance. It hasn't worked. That 1-in-10,000 target was arrived at via politics and hopeful thinking. It was achieved worldwide in 2000, putting the WHO in the risible position of claiming "elimination!" and then seeking more money to, like, eliminate it some more.
The organization was bitterly criticized. Earnest, indignant treatises have been written noting that there is too little money to go around, and accusing the WHO of risking the credit of the more promising drives against polio and Guinea worm.
So, the anti-leprosy push was a $200 million failure.
Because it didn't eradicate leprosy.
It only cured 14 million people.
Of leprosy.
For half the price of an Alaskan bridge to nowhere.
Oddly enough, $200 million is reportedly the tax deferral enjoyed by former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson -- he of bailout infamy -- when he joined the Bush cabinet as treasury secretary.
So there you have it, finally: For $200 million of public money we can take a walk in the footsteps of Jesus Christ himself, curing millions of leprosy. A truly inspiring future is, as always, easily within reach, if we choose it.
Or we can just give Hank Paulson a tax break. Maybe throw in a credenza by way of thanks.
- Posted in

44 Comments so far
Show AllThis destruction of the United States was deliberate.
That's the thing, eh? It's a crime so massive, no one believes it has occurred. Things have gone so far since Reagan (shoot, remember when capital-gains cuts and slashing care for the mentally ill was all we had to contend with?) that no one notices...the Big Lie as Big Crime--
We're finished. It's all over but the bleeding.
Here's hoping I'm wrong.
HUMBABA: "This destruction of the United States was deliberate."
YES! YES! YES! ... Have been watching it since the Supreme Court's Give-away election to George W. Bush [but that was not really the beginning of what is now obvious]. And then came: ENRON & Kenny Lay's wild financial and energy plans; Cheney's secret Energy Policy meetings, which still have not seen the light of day in terms of who was there and the transcripts of what was discussed; 9-11 ... a massive, exquisitely planned CRIME by a compatible group of government/military officials and minions for Israel, some who live here with dual-citizenship, "serve" in the government and/or sit at tables at some of those high-sounding conservative COUNCILS that are the cover-the-tracks fronts for nasty, nasty plans afoot to bring down and take over the U.S. of A. and control the rest of the globe apropos of David Rockefeller's righteous, unabashed, no-foolin'-around plans and insistence on a ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT run by the elites, the corporate and financial moguls. Those who head the Zionist Israel government along with their top-of-the-line spies and demolition experts of the Mossad, and their connections to the House of Rothschild and all those other powerful banks and big-money folks are the joined-at-the-hip twin to their U.S. counterparts in CRIME. And so much more.
THE PUFFIN: "That's the thing, eh? It's a crime so massive, no one believes it has occurred. Things have gone so far since Reagan (shoot, remember when capital-gains cuts and slashing care for the mentally ill was all we had to contend with?) that no one notices...the Big Lie as Big Crime--
Yeah, and remember when GOLD was kept at Fort Knox? Nothing there for a long, long time. Remember Nixon deciding to go off the Gold Standard that always backed our U.S. dollars? It's all tied in to billions and billions of dollars worth of stolen gold that was buried in the Philippines by the Japanese during WWII and happily dug up and retrieved by the U.S. as the Marcos government went down in flames, and then there's so much other gold extracted from other third-world countries ... Where is it all? 9-11 was a great cover for gold certificates coming due on September 11-12. Strange that the IMF suddenly has a lot of gold to pay out as loans to other countries now. It struck me as an odd item when I heard it on the news. 9-11 provided cover for the gold dispersals, for networks of financiers up to no good.
People who sniff at conspiracy theories and theorists as NUTZ obviously don't do much reading and ferreting out facts. There have never not been genuine conspiracies when POWER, CONTROL and WEALTH ... gold, jewels, territories, etc., were at stake.
Emperors have been assassinated; monarchs have had their heads cut off; the military have taken over civilian governments [currently Honduras]; governments have been overthrown and empires and nations have fallen. So what else is new?
The handwriting has been writ large on many walls, and yes, it's too way-out and too big to believe, and VERY, VERY COMPLICATED. But George W. et al. got "his" war of choice in Iraq, and swore up and down we would never desert the poor Afghan people, but rebuild their country, but, not only is Condi and Dick's oil pipeline there, but who do you really think is cashing in ... lo, these EIGHT years of "WAR" with the enemy ... on all that OPIUM? And look at the variations in who is the current enemy: Bin Laden and Co. to Al Qaida [a relatively small group that has now gotten larger] to the oppressive, fundamentalist Taliban, but the current Taliban are not the same Taliban group who originally took over, and war lords and Pakistani groups, etcetera. Much more diverse.
The configurations and plots and sub-plots are mind-boggling, but those who know where they are going and what they want have charted a steady course. THE BIG LIE[S] as BIG CRIME is alive and well, and the relatively small number of perpetrators remain hidden or camouflaged, and those really not in the know make lots of noise, cause lots of strife with their various conservative to liberal positions to Right Wing Religiosity clashing all over the place, but they still don't have a clue, as most U.S. citizens don't [as they continue to enlist and send their loved ones and children to "WAR" in defense of freedom and democracy] that THE BIG HEIST of the U.S. of A. is winding down into a destroyed Republic without a viable democratic and electoral process, both processes obviously now more show than any real substance.
What we can be sure of is that a bunch of Addicts for Power, Control and Money are laughin' as they read their profit sheets, but also with their metallic hearts could care less, don't even pay much attention to all the confused, frightened and grieving people out in the street, with many more to come, because they lost their homes, their livehoods, and their representation, and these Addicts with their moral and spiritual bankruptcy could care less at all the wounded, dying and dead in so many places.
And THE BEAT GOES ON!
/cm
The global parasites will scavenge as long as there is decaying matter. They even eat their own children.
The faces of evil? Just turn on the TV.
...and this destruction ripples through the whole planet.
ESSENTIAL reading to follow the money is: “Collateral Damage” by E. P Heidner, part I and II.
>>> www.scribd.com/people/documents/2169400-ep-heidner <<<
The implications are BEYOND BELIEF.
yachtie ... Thanks. I forgot to put it at the end of my comment. Mind-boggling, isn't it? But it makes so much sense.
best, cm
It makes so much sense that NOBODY has yet been able to find fault or inconsistency in "Collateral Damage".
All the best for you too. I enjoy your detailed comments.
"Cure Millions of Leprosy -- or Just Give Hank Paulson a Tax Break?"
That's exactly the issue.
Conservative/Republican economic thinking would choose the tax reduction.
This is psychopathic thinking.
This thinking, this value set, needs to be exposed for its moral vacuousness and exorcised from American culture.
The Republican party is a one trick pony. If the economy is doing good, they say we need tax cuts. The economy is doing bad, we need tax cuts. If we have no budget deficit then we should cut taxes to give the people back their money. If we have huge budget deficits we still should cut taxes.
Think about that last one. They scream about the huge national debt but they still want to cut taxes. Oh well...
When I read articles like this it makes me wonder what has happened to the USA? When I was young we were made to believe that Capitalism was the greatest thing that ever existed. Now we see what happens when there are no checks and balances to ensure Capitalism doesn't run amuck. I bet the Russians are laughing at us now. I fear this uncertain road back because the "GREED" monster does not like to wear chains.
This an excellent article that helps to put all these issues into a context people should be able to easily grasp.
It also clearly shows the GOOD that organizations such as the UN do and shows the potential for good that rich countries of the world are capabale of.
It also important to remember that Dr Salk refused to patent the Polio vaccine. He felt it more important it get out there as quickly and as cheaply as possible, rather then him making a PROFIT off of it.
Note that much of his research came from TAXpayer dollars.
It seems to me that such a much better system then this privatize for profit patented for 17 years so its a choice between medicine and eating system we have today.
Well written article --- I enjoyed the fine whiskey on the credenza to toast children contracting polio joke.
It seems the USA has already bled out ------ No money, no industry , no morals, no common sense, no knowledge .
Just put a big old smiley face on the flag...usa usa usa ra ra ra......
Just a note on the scale used to illustrate the relative 'sizes' of the million, billion and trillion mention in the article.
And this really should scare the shit out of you...
99% of the money in the world, and especially in the US, DOES NOT PHYSICALLY EXIST!
It's 1's and 0's floating about in the nebulous realm of computer subspace. It electrons being manipulated by the investment and banking elite. It's fiat money that is being propped up by a mutually agreed upon lie.
If every person in the US alone were to walk into their bank of choice at 9am and attempt to withdraw their balance in cash, the supply of liquid cash money would be gone before 2pm, adjusted for local time.
Five hours is all it would take to bankrupt the entire nation.
It almost happened last October. Not just in the US, but England as well. Iceland is already on IMF life support. Ireland just joined the EU based in part on the near total collapse of it's economy last October due to the economic meltdown.
So keep that in mind when Bernake and Geitner pour the kool-aid of a 'recovery'...
And THIS is how that SYSTEM works: "Zeitgeist Addendum" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=895026537690187652
"Ireland just joined the EU based in part on the near total collapse of it's economy last October due to the economic meltdown."
Wrong.
I understand that this article is well-intended, however, its author allowed his misunderatanding of an economic principle to undermine its integrity. That is not to suggest that I disagree with his altruistic intentions, because I don't; but his contention that "we've burned through" the bailout funds could not be much further from the truth.
To begin with, our national wealth can only diminish when something of value is lost or destroyed, or when asset values lose value. It can for instance be asserted that wealth does not trickle down, but the assertion that wealth also does not trickle up or sideways is only true if asset values have diminished. But since the bailout, asset values have risen dramatically, housing is of course stagnant although stocks are up by about 35%. And economic growth is outpacing the adverse feedback loops and nothing has the potential to "burn through" wealth with the destuctive force of adverse feedback loops. In other words, wealth VANISHES as asset values lose value but funds given to banks still exist even if bankers divert obscene portions of these funds to themselves. That also means therefore that bankers could steal ALL OF THE FUNDS and that would be better than allowing the funds to vanish, that of course because the funds are retrievable only so long as they exist.
So, the premise of this article is antithetical to the author's well intended purpose of curing diseases. Because, the much needed funds for curing diseases are still in play. Which leads to what would make for a debate with a premise based on the redistribution of wealth as the means to cure disease. But then of course our nation is having that very debate. Unfortunatly though, the vast majority of those involved in our debate do not have the necessary understanding to reach valid conclusions. Which explains why Madison's protections against populism were necessary.
I really dug this article for its spirit and for hitting the bull's eye. But I don't understand your comment. What do you mean by "our national wealth?" Who is "we?" And what do you mean by "asset values?" Derivatives of debt which you can bet on in the casino called the stock market? Paper assets which "vanish" when the market falls? Do you actually think "the funds" are "retrievable?" Do you have any idea what the actual distribution of wealth is in the USA and how tax dollars are spent? Does the word "debt" mean anything to you? Did you read what the latest unemployment figures are? Do you know lending and consumption are going nowhere fast? Would you like to bet on the odds of a run on the dollar in the next 12 months? And what "debate" is "our nation" having? The one on who to bomb next and how many more troops and money to sink into Afghanistan and how NOT to reform health coverage no matter what?
Desmoulins,
I am sorry that you "don't understand". You are correct though and added proof to what Madison believed about the importance of protecting against populism. Thanks for the example.
Hang on a moment...I am a bit at a loss too.
"our national wealth can only diminish when something of value is lost or destroyed" and that is the dollar by being hijacked by the Fed.
And "It can for instance be asserted that wealth does ... trickle down" but that's what it is: a trickle down at best rather a free flow.
"The funds" are retrievable only for the ones who hold them, created out of debt and interest.
"Latest unemployment figures" are as phony as the people who want to make you believe that the dollar you earn is worth the same as the digits on a cyber account.
"Lending and consumption going nowhere" are for the taxpaying punters only, the rest can acquire whatever the digits assume.
As for ":the debate the nation is having"...you talking about American Idol?
I believe we are all in the same boat. No point to haggle for the oars.
yachtie,
Because you are the second person to bring up my use of the word "retrievable", the money in question is taxable as opposed to non-existent money which has the "blood from a turnip" problem.
As for the rest of your "economics", see my reply to Jim and then study for about 10 years and get back to me. You might start with trying to understand fractional reserve banking. And it is wishful thinking to assume that "haggle" will occur over who will do the rowing. The uninformed have always done the unpleasant jobs or swum.
Don't allow a foolish theory about the "Fed" to distract you from meaningful education. You are assuming that progress is easy and that EVERYONE who disagrees with your confused ideology is either greedy or incompetent. I don't know if good will prevail over evil but I do know that there is time enough for you to educate yourself and that your voice is currently doing more harm than good.
Thank Gawd for intelligent, educated and eloquent people like you to show us halfwits the light.
yachtie,
Two of the quotes from your reply are not even from my comments. Then the quotes which are from my text, you distorted to fit the irrelevent remarks which were attached to my comment so as to imply argumentation. This was nothing more than a childish attempt to insult my comment with falsehoods and nonsense. So even this last vain effort of yours is not accurate because until now I had made very little effort to "show" YOU "the light".
So populism is the evil now and those who don't get what you are saying are crossing Madison?
OK, then what did Madison have to say about the shadow banking system?
Jim,
Not "crossing Madison", but providing evidence of his wisdom. Consider what would happen if a democracy were structured in a literal framework; if for instance the population were allowed to set tax rates. Or, if people who are unable to understand my relatively simple comment above were given a voice on economic choices. Or if those who need distortions to present their positions were making political decisions ( "So populism is the evil now and those who don't get what you are saying are crossing Madison" {not to mention the lack of historical understanding}). Not to suggest that our democracy is free of the affects of misinformed selfish behavior, but instead to say that things could be much worse.
Your second question seems to assume that I advocated something regarding economics in my comment, which I did not. That may seem unusual here on this site, but that connects to my point in regards to populism. These threads are rife with radical opinions which are the result of confusion. The intention of my comment was therefore nothing more than to do my part by sharing something I know that I thought might diminish what is a vicious circle effect. An effect caused by a lack of understanding that indoctrinates by affirmation. Falsehoods are falsehoods no matter how many people believe them, and so to say that the bailouts have been burned through is a falsehood; but my explaining of that fact has nothing to do with my opinions on "shadow banking". Of course there was no shadow banking in Madison's day but there was a propensity for people to believe what was put best by Upton Sinclar: "It is difficult for a man to understand what his livelihood depends on his not understanding". Madison understood this and that people are motivated by more than just greed. Madison believed that education allowed a person to transend his or her bias.
Mr./Ms. Love,
I'm sorry you didn't understand my irony in the interest of courtesy. Furthermore, you didn't answer or even address my questions other than with a snidely supercilious evasion. If education is so important to you, c'mon baby, educate me. Also, though you may worship James Madison, there is a good case to be made that his fear of populism was motivated by his interest in protecting his property and that of his fellow rich and powerful elite friends, and not by a concern for the good of the whole society (including their "education"). Madison and Sinclair are strange bedfellows, but I throw the Sinclair quote back atcha.
Desmoulins,
Based on your questions and your less than genuine claim of being "polite", I suppose your ignorance is of the type that might only be assuaged by formal education. That because there is only one of two choices for me, your ignorance is either severe (assuming that your questions ARE genuine), or, your lack of civility has caused a dynamic which has left you with many, many, unanswered questions; and a void which you have evidently filled with uninformed assumptions ("worship James Madison"???). Either way, I don't have time for you but for $50k or so there is probably an institution in your area that might satisfy your needs, whatever those needs may be?
Desmoulins,
The editing of your comments, AFTER being replied to, is the lowest form of deceit I have seen on this site. And this site has the lowest standards that I am aware of.
You have in fact distinguished yourself and I will most surely use you as an example. Why someone not fully identified would resort to such shameful lows should make for some interesting conversations. (Thanks for the timeless entertainment)
I assure that you that I edited the comment almost immediately after posting it and BEFORE seeing your reply. Your sense of civility, deceit and shame strike me as exaggerated and at odds with reality. Can you consider the possibility that you may be overreacting? I admit I responded emotionally to your original post, whose tone I found smug and condescending, much like that of the Wall Street cabal who play a leading role in the power structure of “our nation.” And rereading your post, I’m willing to grant that I may have reached a hasty and rash conclusion leading to a misjudgment, and for that I sincerely apologize. I also admit that I’m neither a banker nor an economist (though there is everywhere evidence that neither bankers nor economists, with the best “educations” money can buy, have a profound understanding of the current crisis, and certainly the former had a lot to do with causing it.) My original post meant to question your use of the term “asset values” with respect to tangible vs. paper assets. As far as the bailout money being “retrievable,” there is an important difference between de facto and de jure, no? It is difficult not to conclude that the tiny corporate oligarchy who do make the decisions in this country (and again, who have the best “educations” money can buy), have every intention of continuing to protect their property at all costs. But if you can only respond by assuming a position of superiority from which to dismiss me with underhanded insults and then taking umbrage partially disproportionate to reality and partially due to a misunderstanding, end of attempted discussion. For my part, I’m happy to rethink any mistaken assumptions I may be making or to learn from any superior knowledge you may have. Discere Docendo. Peace.
Desmoulins,
There is a 51 minute gap between your altered remark (2:22) and my response to that remark (3:13), in my response notice the word "polite" in quotation marks. You had claimed that your original reply to my first comment was polite, a claim which is still obviously disingenuous. After posting my reply I read yours again and then mine again so as to double check everything, which I always do, and the missing sentence was still there at that time, a time well past "almost immediatley".
Most of your questions if not all came with fitted answers but you seem to prefer the question regarding "asset values" so here is the problem with your shinning example: First, lets have a look at your question and the one that follwed it, "And what do you mean by 'asset values'? Derivatives of debt which you can bet on in the casino called the stock market?" Notice how your first question implies no Knowledge on the same subect matter that your second question suggests full Knowledge of. And in my original comment I DID explain: "...our national wealth can only diminish when something of value is lost or destroyed, or when asset values lose value. But since the bailout, asset values have risen dramatically, HOUSING" (TANGIBLE ASSETS)"is of course stagnant although stocks"(PAPER ASSETS)"are up by 35%." So, because I knew that I had already covered your question, and that "Derivatives of debt" are not the same as stocks as interchanable terms, I knew immediately that you were talking out of your ass, while also posing one of many stupid questions. And had you asked me respectfully I would have shared more with you on the subject of economics than you think you know now, and I could have done so in less time than I have spent on you thus far. I might have explained for example that the author's premise is absolutely false just because part of the bailout funds have been paid back; this alone makes "burned through" a distortion. The bailout funds are also drawing interest and some gains will occur and have occured via consumption. And of course other revenues will be the result of taxes. How much lost wealth might also be retrieved by stock gains is an open question although the 35% rise I cited has already made the retirment of millions of people a far sight better than what it might have been without the bailout. The marginal tax rate has also been moved up to where capital flight concerns allow; and our government has manuvered the Swiss banks into a position that has already provided a list of tax evaders. And nothing significant in regards to the redistribution of wealth in the U.S. can happen so long as the risk of capital flight is in play. But I did not need to explain any of this because my original point was only that "retrievable" is infinitely better than "non-existent". Which was a way to keep things simple but perhaps not simple enough considering my readership. ("defacto and de jure" is then just more of your vanity and ignorance)
As for the rest of your attempts to insult and blame me, pathetic. Delusional folks are the ones who need to bend "reality" and your take on this countries state of affairs is clearly delusional. Just thinking that you have valid opinions on complicated issues which you lack the language skills to discuss is proof enough. But not recognizing that my original comment was intended to help improve the circumstances of those in your position is even more telling.
Your analysis of rising asset values (for example the perceived gains of stock marked value) betrays your flaunted acumen.
Your stile...well, sad to see such a bitter and angry fellow.
yachtie,
By your knowledgable generosity, I learned that I am "500,000 in debt" having to do with a "digital scam" to the tune of "$550 trillion" in "digital loot",("hijacked by the fed"). Who would not be "such a bitter and angry fellow".
And now you tell me that the stock market gains since March are only "perceived". And that these perceived gains are due to my "analysis" and betrayed by my "flaunted acumen". Do you have any idea of how much trouble I am in? Do you realize that huge portions of those gains have already been spent. Did you think that by making it so cleary my fault that I might be less bitter and angry? How do you know that the Fed is not trying to frame me? How do you know that I am the one who does the stock market's analysis, ARE YOU THE ONE KNOWN AS THE "speller".
Well, look R.L., the people who discuss with you ideas are not after you. THEY are NOT the enemy.
They might have varying points of view, they might be less educated than you, they might express opinion in a for you questionable form, they might even disagree with you. But “we are all in the same boat”. In fact, they are probably amongst the most sympathetic people to your dire situation. Directing anger at those who try to make sense of the biggest crime and fraud the world has seen, is the wrong way I believe. It does nothing to further understanding and unity. Many of us are already on the edge.
I am sorry to hear your plight and really wish that things will turn out alright for you.
('The speller'???. I don't know what you mean.)
yachtie,
Because you did not deny that you are in fact the S.E.C. AGENT known as the "speller", I suppose I guessed correctly? I really appreciate your concern for my "dire situation". It does seem however that you are partly responsible for my "plight". Until you explained the state of the economy and "the biggest crime and fraud the world has ever seen", I thought everything was good. I knew there were some problems but as you so deftly said, my "analysis" caused a "perceived" stock market gain that might cause hardship for millions of people. Of course rich people do not deserve to benefit from anything but what about all of those retirees and their 401(k)s? I seem to have caused so much hardship for so many and now the anger is subsiding but only to be replaced by sadness and guilt. Will you put in a good word for me and maybe help out with the cost of my legal defence? Might you at least provide me with more advice?
Legal defense? My advice would be pleading insanity (shouldn't be too difficult for you) because nastiness is no defense. And I'll promise to put in a good word for you...when they admit you.
yachtie,
Does it seem odd that someone so sensitive and so adept at assuming "anger" and bitterness would be so unable to recognize sarcasm and humor. And do you believe that someone with advice that pleads insanity should give advice? And is it nasty to show a person how assumptions are a pitfall for fools or, is it nasty to base your claims on assumptions?
Love,
Sorry you don't believe me--re the edit, I'm in Italy with a cell phone connection which may cause a delay. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to contribute to my education, on several levels. Here's to the rise of the stock market and the decline in curable disease. "You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." Cheers.
Desmoulins,
I will take you at your word on the 'EDIT' contention. It is of little importance. But you still seem to be clinging to your assumptions. Again, this of little importance to me but think about this: I believe staunchly that the investment class has become tyrannical in our democracy. In the 1920s the investment class was 2% of the population; but this 2% had enough influence to manipulate the laws of supply and demand in their favor. They undermined the unions with their "yellow dog contract" campaign while simutaneously allowing the Glut of 1921 to force down the value of staple goods, and of course staple goods affect the value of labor. By 1929 the number those living below poverty reached 71%(before the crash), and the average farm earned 25% of the level from 10 years earlier(also before the crash).
Before the broad based upsurge of 401(k)s as retirement accounts, by the mid 1980s, the invesment class had grown to 25% of the adult population. By 2007 this number had increased to 50%. So what this means in terms of influence as applied to a democracy, that is the question of our time because a democracy is vulnerable to class tyranny, this due to fact that voters are most heavily influenced by their economic interests. Add to this the dynamics of polling and political parties shifting in efforts to win and corportism is inevitable. But corporations are not the problem, investors as voters are the problem. The problem with our democracy is that it DOES give voters influence but no matter how many people believe in a falsehood, it is still a falsehood. So without media integrity the conflict between Populism and Elitism is intensified. Hence the joining of seeming opposites such as Madison and Sinclair. Madison understood the power of economic necessity and Sinclair defined where that necessity was evolving to, "It is difficult to get someone to understand what his livlihood depends on him not understanding". And now this wisdom of Sinclair's applies to an ever increasing number of people, and not just the wealthy. A poor man will protect what he has also.
So, what about those assumptions? I can tell you that objectivity is not easy to master, but without it truth is not possible. With truth comes understanding but also a burden of responsibility. There is truth on this thread that is yours if you go back and read your comments and mine and some of those by others. The understanding comes naturally over time, if I could explain how exactly I would, but all I know for sure is that it just comes. And the harder you work the more it comes.
Ray
Ray,
A truce, yay! So, we may have some values in common. And thanks for the stats on the changing participation in the market which I’ve been meaning to research. If you don’t have any more time for this, ciao, and I’ll keep an eye out for you on another thread… But (and, honestly, I ask with genuine respect and interest in your opinion)… don’t the 50% have much smaller holdings than the 2% had? Isn’t it still a small percentage consisting of the richest, with the investment bankers who trade blocks (which include the little guys, the “middle class,” with their individual holdings being small portions of big funds) who really pull the strings of the market? I mean, aren’t many of that 50% the very workers whose salaries haven’t risen since Reagan? If the top 1% get 22% of national income with 10% taking half of the total (not unlike 1928), isn’t that still a small elite controlling the wealth and so able to buy the government? And with CEOs so obscenely rewarded, as you said, for increasing the bottom line, how can their selfishly reckless behavior be controlled? And besides the greatly expanded financial industry, there are the ever more voracious appetites of the MIC, oil, media conglomerates (served by a lack of integrity), etc. Now, didn’t many of that 50% who now participate in the stock market, vote for Obama (along with many of the truly marginalized, particularly of color, who usually don’t vote at all)? And Obama, though he got a lot of funding from Wall Street, did say he would focus on Afghanistan and ran to genuflect before AIPAC immediately after being nominated, did NOT campaign on a pro-business platform, with his now farcical slogan. His supporters can say that he is betraying his mandate for a more just wealth distribution, a restoration of workers’ protections, more investment in education and infrastructre, and is now merely acting as a frontman for the elite with his fancy talk and weak efforts. Same as Clinton. Couldn’t you say that based on the campaign rhetoric on domestic issues, the voters chose a candidate who seemed to have an ethical concern for the greater (and legitimate) interests of more of the “people” this time? Or am I wrong about the profile of the 50%, in which case is your point that more of Obama’s supporters were cynical and affluent? I’m cynical and poor, but I like one of the Common Dreamers’ ideas about creating a party based only on economic issues. This would be truly populist in the good sense of the word, and could, ideally, bridge the gap between progressives and the extreme right who in their ignorance often irrationally do NOT vote their pocketbooks but rather on social issues, as the demagogues on talk radio and Fox well know. But I don’t have much hope for the realization of this. I would be happy if I was delusional and reality were other than I see it. Maybe I do have naïve, unrealistic expectations resulting from coming of age in the shadow of the sixties and watching those ideals trashed and ridiculed over my lifetime, and need to see that things could be worse. In the “developing” world of course, they are much worse. Even Chomsky says more people are still better off than they were before the popular movements of the 60s (not to mention the Middle Ages, the French Revolution, the Enlightenment and the beginning of the industrial age). And there are two sides to globablization. But it’s very, very difficult not to be overwhelmed by a vision of human greed, arrogance, indifference, egotism and irresponsibility, i.e. decadence, perpetrating massive injustice and harm on and to the planet. Need to see the forest for the trees, or maybe look between the trees! (But the trees are all being cut down! Insert smiley face here.)
Sydney
Sydney,
No need for a truce because I knew all along we were on the same side.
The investment class affect is difficult to understand and I am working on a book so there are things I am not ready to give away. Consider though that each voter who switches sides adds one and takes one away. It is impossible though to measure influence, naturally. Think of what would happen though if one could prove, absolutely, that by socializing corporations, (pretend for the sake of simplification, that the modes of production are entirely robotic [therby eliminating the incentives glitch]), that the needs of twice as many people could be met(global)if the investment gains of wealthiest 2% of U.S. citizens were nationalized. Now consider how a vote on this "sacrifice" might turn out if 25% or 50% of the population was asked to make this same sacrifice to varying degrees of benefit as compared to the 2%. Obviously, 98 against 2 is very different than 1 against 1, or 2 against 1, or 3 against 1 etc. This is of course super simplified but the basis for what might be the most important factor of all. That being the fact that it comes down to complacency and apathy. Have you ever been to a country just before or during or just after a revolution? Even the poorest village in the poorest nation has a satisfied sect that will fight to the death for what they have as compared to others in their village. A working person in the U.S. with even a small 401(k) compares himself with his parents first and his commensurables in regards to vocation. This is done with global comparisons because that is how leaders justify themselves in this country, we are told from childhood to the grave how lucky we are to be Americans. So being franchised is not about being rich but about satisfied. A Corportacracy can only exist in a complacent democracy and the fact that many choose not to vote may be as important as those votes from the investment class. On the other side of the influence factor therefore there is a required complacency factor and it is good to remember what lengths some people will go to for how little in return. Revolutions do not typically occur until the majority is living in abject poverty and even the lowest paid workers in the U.S., especially those with their tiny 401(k)s, are a long way from abject poverty.
...Sydney,
What the progressive left is missing is how critically important the capital flight problem is. Capitalism has come to a crossroads that took a very long time to reach. The failure of the EMH and the Laffer Curve (supply-side economics) is huge in regards to the potential for progress. Contrary to one of your remarks not all economists failed to understand that there were severe imbalances. But economists became those who were unable to understand what their "livlihood depended on their not understanding". This is part of the investment class affect but also they were anxious to prove their worth as academics. So there was some wishful thinking involved and demand played a role because anyone on the side of labor was marginalized. Ambition has its role etc. But whether Obama is "betraying his mandate for a more just wealth distribution" or, whether he is walking softly while carrying a big stick is a tough call. There seems to be more to the Swiss Banking situation than we are privy to. The Swiss government making consessions to the I.R.S. is beyond unusual. But considering the importance of capital flight and how uncertain that option has become already, considering also some other simular efforts in the Caymans, the UBS bailout could be more than just a bailout of a foreign bank, which is unusual in its own right. (It has occurred to me also that Polanski might be some sort of gesture of good faith?)
Anyway, without going into what wealth redistribution could mean in terms of global economic effeciency, this could very well be the most important progress in our lifetimes. But "walking softly" is clearly required for the obvious reasons. Obama has mentioned the farm subsidies in an off-hand way also, saying they were under consideration or something along those lines, so I think he has been hinting all along but support from the progressive democrats is the least of his problems. And those of us even more to the left are of no concern when the risks of tipping his hand are considered so we must read between the lines. If I were to bet though I would bet that the world is about to improve in a big way. But that is not to say that Americans will be afforded the fat and lazy ways that they have so embraced.
One person's progress has always meant another person's pain, although this time each person may be better for it. That is a new level of progress.
The article fails on two matters:
1) The SYSTEM has more than enough people to keep appeased with blatant consumerism. In fact the SYSTEM is not interested to facilitate population growth.
2) The $ billions/trillions do not exist other than as digital loot of the biggest crime syndicate the world has seen. Now this digital scam in use to acquire commodities, facilities and real estate.
But more to the figures:
What's a measly couple of trillion dollars?
How does 70 trillion sound?
Or 550 trillion?
The U.S. Government has crafted a distortion of reality. They have found a way to cover up 85% of the nation's actual debt!
The Feds essentially keep two sets of books that make up America's debt portfolio. The first set of books is the widely publicized "National Public Debt." The National Public Debt is currently over $12 trillion and is climbing at a rate of almost $4 billion per day. This is the figure that's quoted in the evening news and on the famous U.S. National Debt Clock in Manhattan. In the past century, this debt has skyrocketed nearly 400,000%.
But the National Public Debt doesn't even come close to telling half of the story: The U.S. government is another $60 trillion in the hole!
The U.S. government doesn't classify future financial responsibilities such as social security, government-sponsored health care, and other contractual obligations as "public debt." With this simple act of reclassification the Feds have been able to shield the American public from the truth about the country's actual debt position. Nevertheless, these financial obligations will cost the American taxpayers roughly $60 trillion!
This debt is no secret among Washington insiders, nor is the fact that the government is trying to hide it. In fact, David Walker, the former U.S. Comptroller General and the nation's top accountant between 1998 and 2008 said, "As the federal official who signs the audit report on the government's financial statements, it is apparent that our government's financial condition is far worse than advertised."
Walker has also said, "Current federal financial reporting and budgeting provides policymakers and the public with an incomplete and even misleading picture."
Add it all up, and the United States government is on the line for almost $70 trillion in total financial obligations, including public debt.
This is today’s scenario.
Lets look at what’s coming:
The U.S. Government Accountability Office released a new report a few months ago called "The Federal Government's Financial Health." In this report, the GAO reported an expected increase in National Public Debt of over 500% within the next several decades! And this is the U.S. government's own estimates!!!
A similar move in the nation's actual debt — that's the National Public Debt plus all other fiscal responsibilities — would result in a total financial obligation of over $550 trillion! That's over $1.8 million that would be owed by every American citizen!
But back to the present: America's current $70 trillion debt works out to about $500,000 per working American or to put it differently, every American child is born into debt owing nearly a quarter million dollars! The interest on that debt alone is going to cost almost twice as much as educating the child!
And here is the most interesting bit: the blame for this swindle cannot be attributed to one party, Democrats or Republicans, but is rooted in the whole system.
Democracy, in it’s current form, is the tyranny of a few cunning circles with controlling and omnipotent lobbies and mass media propaganda, that use the ignorant majority ‘mandate’ of the voting masses for their treacherous agenda. The two-party oligarchy manages the profit and wealth flow for a relatively small elite. Most pivotal parts of this machine are tightly interwoven and are made out of the elite’s cronies and benefactors of this abominable theft and fraud. Their lobby established a two-flavoured (Dems and Reps) system that plays ping-pong with citizens’ votes, draining all chance for a desperately needed radical change of ways (And if you deny that a radical change of ways is desperately needed, you are ignorant or part of this morose parasitic machine).
This system has been able to keep the voting masses in a state of acquiescence and convenient ambivalence. Common lifestyle was provided by loan, education is geared around producing useful subjects rather than freethinking individuals, the masses were kept occupied with inane entertainment, silenced by welfare payments and war games, manipulated by corporate controlled mass media, and preoccupied by hope-inducing wishful hogwash that we have a choice under this system.
The system is unsustainable for numerous reasons and will undergo drastic change. The severity and direction of change depends on the severity of lifestyle destruction, economic depression and public mood.
The circus is still performing but they are running out of new acts. The crowd looks displeased.
"(And if you deny that a radical change of ways is desperately needed, you are ignorant or part of this morose parasitic machine)."
Well said.
Doctor Bivens,
You have made an error in assuming that predatory capitalists are humane. I would agree with you that spending these trifling amounts on medical activities is the absolute best way to invest public money. The return on investment for all of us is a healthier world with more productive and happy people. However, the predators that control the public purse strings look at humans as profit or loss units. They see no common ground between themselves and the rest of the human race.
See the writings of C. Wright Mills for a full explanation.