EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Shock And Awe: Fireworks, Smiley Faces, and The Depression
Two days after a jobs report showed how many Americans are down, the nation was looking up — at fireworks signaling the anniversary of American independence (even as the BP disaster shows how dependent we've become).
On July 4th, here in New York, my block was jammed with oo-ing and aah-ing onlookers as was the whole West Side of Manhattan when the Macy's Department store shot off 40,000 shells at a rate of 1500 a minute and at a cost of $500,000.
It reminded me of deadlier fireworks over Baghdad.
This event, symbolically, may have been a shock and awe campaign of an economic war aimed our way, but we couldn't see it.
Across the river in New Jersey, town after town canceled local shows because they had no money in the budget left for bread and circus extravaganzas.
Oh, how we love our country, reported the Daily News, "Red, white and boom, boom, boom! The skies over the Hudson River were transformed Sunday night into a patriotic canvas bursting with bangs 1,000 feet in the air and even exploding smiley faces."
We need more than smiley faces these days. The alleged "recovery" is slowing. Many experts don't expect a turnaround until 2011, too late for next fall's elections. Some fear another crash. A few say the Dow Jones Industrial Average is repeating a pattern that appeared just before markets fell in 1929.
In England, The Telegraph reports a truth that many Americans and our media cheerleaders really don't want to see or face:
"With the US trapped in depression, this really is starting to feel like 1932."
The US workforce shrank by 652,000 in June, one of the sharpest contractions ever. The rate of hourly earnings fell 0.1pc. Wages are flirting with deflation.
Robert Reich, the former Labor secretary, has no use for rockets bursting in air, writing, "The economy is still in the gravitational pull of the Great Recession. All the booster rockets for getting us beyond it are failing."
"Home sales are down. Retail sales are down. Factory orders in May suffered their biggest tumble since March of last year. So what are we doing about it?" he asked. "Less than nothing."
Another article in Newsweek picks up the nothing theme. Writes Daniel Gross:
"Without a healthy jobs market, the recession-shocked consumer won't spend. And yet Washington's response seems to be a collective throwing up of hands. There are a few things the government can do about persistent long-term unemployment.
First, it can lessen the pain it causes by expanding the safety net, extending unemployment-insurance benefits so that the long-term unemployed have a source of cash to help them stay current on rent, mortgage, and credit card bills.
Second, it can respond to persistent long-term unemployment by enacting policies aimed at creating and preserving jobs. These can take the form of summer jobs programs, enhanced public works programs, aid to strapped municipalities so they can avoid layoffs, and tax cuts and credits for investment and hiring.
But so far? Nothing. And the question is, why."
"'Why' is a crooked letter," my grandmother used to say. Today it's the logic of those that won't act that is crooked, and out of touch with reality. What many of us don't realize is that there has been an effective well-funded PR campaign underway for years to convince us that deficits are more dangerous than unemployment or the abuse of consumers.
Behind it is a foundation run by financier Pete Peterson aided and abetted by Warren Buffet and other billionaires. I first came across them when my film warning of a credit crash, In Debt We Trust, came out in 2006. It indicted the credit card companies and banks. It was not a message many were ready for then and I had big problems getting it into top festivals and theaters.
A year later, another film, IOUSA, came out backed by a slick marketing campaign and advertising galore. Its message was that government spending and debt will kill us. With generous backing by Buffet and Peterson's foundation, it was everywhere including Sundance.
That effort spawned a stealth lobbying effort with seminars, briefings and conferences. Now they are running so called "America Speaks" national town halls. Nineteen events have been held so far, to build support for cutting Social Security and Medicare. So far these events have provoked intense debates with many of the people taking part rejecting the idea and demanding cuts in defense spending and higher taxes for the rich.
FiredogLake has carried reports like this one:
"Slickly produced scare videos talking about the dire straits of the budget were prevalent. Multiple charts and graphs without precise numbers or percentages were handed out. Speakers discussed how 'most Americans are concerned about the deficits and debt,' and how we cannot grow our way out of the problem. The current state of the economy, which needs an increase in aggregate demand, mostly in the form of government spending, to avoid a relapse into recession, got a short mention at the beginning of the discussion, an inclusion which seemed forced and tacked-on. Overall, there were about 15 minutes of discussion of the current economic problems, and five hours on the deficit."
Fortunately, when these Americans do speak, they tend to say things the organizers and the Congress don't want to hear — like slash defense spending and tax the rich.
But for now, these sentiments are not guiding the economic debate.
That's partly due to the failure of labor and activists to marshal a major campaign on these issues, an effort that should include calls to prosecute financial criminals.
Labor demands jobs from government but is not organizing a public information campaign to expose and challenge Peterson's propaganda. They focus on the inside game-lobbying bought and paid for by members of Congress — but not mobilizing the public.
The problem, said Senator Sherrod Brown, who tried but failed to curtail the power of big banks, is that just working the Congress is a strategy doomed to fail.
"We got a majority of Democrats on the floor but almost nobody on the banking committee," Brown said. "It reminded me that this institution was built to protect the status quo — to protect the powerful against the people. In this chamber, we all sing with an upper-class accent, so to speak."
Writing in The Nation, William Greider says Brown may have been defeated but he is not a defeatist,
"As he sees it, liberal advocates can win if they do the hard work of explaining and recruiting, not just among kindred spirits but among normally conservative business interests and ordinary apolitical citizens who don't call themselves liberal or progressive. Both groups are deeply angered and feeling threatened by the swelling concentration of Wall Street power."
Overseas, European Parliament members are calling for a new kind of campaigning movement, reports IPS: "Besieged by bankers opposed to regulation of their sector, members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have taken an unusual step. A cross-party alliance has called for an international campaigning organization to concentrate on remedying the flaws of the financial services industry with the same tenacity that Amnesty International focuses on victims of torture and Greenpeace on toxic chemicals and whales."
Imagine, politicians who want to be pressured for real change?
Do we have the tenacity and the smarts to recognize that fighting on this issue can either save our economy or, with inaction, be complicit in handing the government over to NOniks on the right?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


8 Comments so far
Show All$$ talks and BS runs the marathon. The right wins because they want to and NOBODY has the guts to oppose them anymore. Barry is a one termer and then back to the brown shirts and their next puppet Emperor, probably the dim-wit from Wasalla.
James Forrestal, America's very first Secretary of Defense, attempted to create a stipulated bilateral agreement between Dems and Repubs in 1947 for the purpose of removing the issue of Palestine from politics. This was seen as necessary because the Zionists were exercising ferocious power over both parties in each of three consecutive campaign cycles by using the threat to side with one or the other party, according to their revealed fealty to Zionism, and, thus, it was universally assumed, to the certain political demise of the opponent. He failed and the rest is history.
This is a perfect template with which to protect the human race from the politicization of issues which are too important or too dangerous to be influenced by anything other than law and fact and decency and common sense, all of which have been regularly overruled by the political blackmailers. The public should seriously think about intstitutionalizing this strategy. It just might push Armageddon back a decade or two. After all, how else might we empower ourselves than by disempowering those forces which are otherwise politically unopposable and, thus, likely to forever cause great injustice and suffering? All it takes is an air tight agreement between honest brokers. I am not sure that Washington is up to the task but it is an idea worth promoting.
Maybe some of the American public is catching on. Cutting defense spending would serve two purposes: 1) freeing up billions if not trillions, for needed public works and 2) reducing the ability of the state to put down legitimate protests by force. I'm not holding my breath, however.
Hi Chrisll,
"Two purposes?"
There are hundreds.
There are two things our government must do.
!. cut 'defense' spending.
2. tax the rich
I'm not holding my breath either, but I am advising you not to vote for a member of either of our two corporate parties. To get any democracy, any hope of our government doing what we the people want, we must clear the corrupt out of Congress. Then maybe we can cut WAR funding and tax the rich.
WHOA, I can see where this is going. Let's see, first they'll dump the "social" out of social security and replace it with: INDIVIDUAL SECURITY."
However, one must make at least 1 million weekly to belong to that club.
The Supreme Court will back this up as after all, "Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness," does have that historical precedent! Someone should be happy in this country!
There will, of course, be legitimate business reasons here.
YES! said Pennybags."If all those poor people are working 1099 jobs, then they have to pay their own taxes and individual security."
"Gosh, if they don't make enough...well, well.... It's illegal to be poor in this country, so arrest them, and find them a job immediately in my coal mine!"
"I am alturistic too, and will provide free housing ( sub terra level)" Of course, if they make under a million a week, then they just don't qualify for the INDIVIDUAL account. I'll set up a "Common Good" fund and their money will go there, and ....oh, gosh, they died....Oh, did I mention that as employees, they did sign away every future earning to me..Ain't America Grand."
:)
Welcome to the ownership society. If you haven't yet been assigned to an owner, please report to your nearest imperial recruitment center for duty in iraq, afganistan, pakistan, iran,...
What pandering nonsense!! You expect people to stand up to SWAT teams?! Predator drones?! Poor, unemployed, hungry desperate people? Look at Toronto! Warren B and his ilk have been planning the takeover for the last 50 years. It's a class war and they're obviously winning!