EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Rise Up or Die
- Rallying Cry: Citizens Worldwide to Unite in 'March Against Monsanto'
- A 'Nonviolent Army of Love' Rises in North Carolina to Face Down Rightwing's Assault on Progress
- The Latest Lie: IRS Targeted Conservatives
- Genetically Modified Democracy: Monsanto and Congress Move to Stomp on Your Rights
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Rich Are Destroying the Economy
Ever since the Great Recession shook the foundations of the U.S. economy, President Obama has been promising recovery. Evidence of this recovery, we were told, was manifested in the massive post-bailout profits corporations made. Soon enough, the President assured us, these corporations would tire of hoarding mountains of cash and start a hiring bonanza, followed by raising wages and benefits. It was either wishful thinking or conscious deception. The recent stock market meltdown has squashed any hope of a corporate-led recovery. 
The Democrats fought the recession by the same methods the Republicans used to create it: allowing the super rich to recklessly dominate the economy while giving them massive handouts. This strategy, commonly referred to as Reaganomics or Trickle Down Economics, is now religion to both Democrats and Republicans; never mind the staged in-fighting for the gullible or complicit media.
When it becomes obvious to even the President that the economic recovery never existed beyond the bank accounts of the rich, questions will have to be answered. Why, for example, did nobody in either political party foresee the disastrous consequences of the bailouts? Not only did the U.S. deficit drastically increase but the same U.S. corporations that caused the recession were given reinforcement for their destructive actions, ensuring that it would continue unabated.
In his book, Crisis Economics, Nouriel Roubini outlines the insane response to the recession by Republicans and Democrats. Because both parties simply threw money at the banks and hedge funds instead of punishing them, a condition of "moral hazard" was created, meaning, that banks would assume another bailout would come their way if they destroyed the economy again -- too big too fail, remember? Roubini explains how the Democrats allowed the "too big" banks to get even bigger; how Wall Street salaries based on short-term profits went unregulated; how the regulations that were put into place were inadequate and filled with loopholes; how nothing of any significance changed.
Roubini has also written extensively about how the post-bailout Federal Reserve policies were fueling a commodity bubble that may be in the midst of bursting, possibly triggering a double dip recession. Essentially the big banks and rich investors were borrowing cheap dollars from the Fed and investing abroad in commodities with the hopes of higher returns. Roubini states:
“The risk is that we are planting the seeds of the next financial crisis...this asset bubble is totally inconsistent with a weaker recovery of economic and financial fundamentals." (October 27, 2009).
This investor-created commodity bubble pushed up prices in oil, food, and other basic products, causing further pain for working families and the economy as a whole. This speculative bubble was easily predictable but ignored by both political parties, since they claimed the bubble was a sign of recovery.
Another mainstream economist, Paul Krugman, also admits that the rich's death-grip on the U.S. political and economic system is causing pain for everybody else:
"Far from being ready to spend more on job creation, both parties agree that it's time to slash spending - destroying jobs in the process - with the only difference being one of degree...policy makers are catering almost exclusively to the interests of rentiers [rich investors] - those who derive lots of income from assets, who lent large sums of money in the past, often unwisely, but are now being protected from loss at everyone else's expense." (June 10, 2011)
Krugman explains that this process continues because the rich dominate the political system through campaign contributions, "access to policy makers,” promises of high paying corporate jobs after their congressional term is over, and good o'l fashion corruption. Because he's a true blue Democrat at heart, Krugman nevertheless focuses most of his rage on Republicans.
Krugman's repeated calls to Democrats and Republicans to create jobs have fallen on deaf ears. Both parties agree that the "private sector" [corporations] should create jobs; until they decide to hire, nothing will happen. This is not merely "bad policy,” as liberals like Krugman like to fret about, but the conscious agenda of the rich. Corporations and rich investors love high unemployment. The Kansas City Star explains why:
"Last year [2010], for the second year in a row, U.S. companies got more work out of their employees while spending less on overall labor costs." (February 3, 2011)
It really is that simple. High unemployment creates a downward pressure on wages, allowing employers to work the remaining employees harder and thus to increase profits. This dynamic, combined with the above commodity speculation, has been the entire basis for the corporate recovery, while working people have literally seen nothing beneficial.
This process is an extension of the bailouts, in the sense that more wealth is being transferred from working people to the corporations. Since consumer spending accounts for 70 percent of the U.S. economy, policies like these ensure that another crisis is inevitable.
Further complicating matters is the ending of the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing program (printing money), which amounted to the Fed buying $600 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds since last fall, essentially funding the U.S. debt and driving down interest rates.
Since the Fed was buying 60 percent of the bonds, a new creditor will need to be found; and this lender will likely require higher interest rates before loaning to the U.S. government, to make sure the loan is profitable. And although different nations buy U.S. debt for different reasons, much of this debt is bought by rich U.S. citizens, who will put the squeeze on the rest of us that have to pay back this debt. The Washington Times explains:
"...Bill Gross, the head of America's own Pimco bond fund, the largest buyer of bonds worldwide, recently reduced Pimco's holdings of Treasuries to zero out of concern that they weren't yielding enough given the risks of inflation and deficit spending." (June 7, 2011)
When the Federal Reserve raises interest rates to satisfy these rich investors, the economy will likely take a further nosedive. It appears, then, that the rich have a win-win situation: they got free bailout money, which increased the deficit; and because the deficit is too high, the rich want higher interest rates for investing in U.S. Treasury Bonds. In both instances working people pay the bills.
This insanity cannot be stopped by conventional measures, since politicians are tone deaf to anything that doesn't ring of corporate cash. The jobs crisis continues as a result of the policy agreed to by both Democrats and Republicans. The labor movement has a special role to play in reversing the above policies.
The corporate-led discussion around cutting social programs to fix the deficits -- on a state and national level -- can be challenged by a nationally coordinated campaign of unions and community allies demanding: Tax the Rich! This demand is significant because it can address both the deficits and the jobs crisis: a massive public works program can be funded by taxing the corporations and the wealthy to pre-Reagan levels. And it makes complete sense because the growing inequalities in wealth over the past three decades has meant a spectacular concentration of wealth at the top. The rich have plenty of money to spare.
Organized labor needs to bring masses of people in the street all over the country in order to get attention and pressure the government to respond to these demands. And it can succeed, especially if it organizes a serious, protracted campaign and especially if this campaign does not get funneled into supporting Democratic candidates, the surest way to kill campaign momentum.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka recently spoke in favor of a strong, independent labor movement. This is the direction it must take, rather than relying on the Democrats. The labor movement must get its act together, unite to put up a fight and demand specific policies that can concretely address the crisis faced by millions of working people.
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...
120 Comments so far
Show All"Corruption is the only thing the masses in the world respect. I say the masses of America and the world are getting exactly what they deserve."
I disagree. I think most people are pedaling as fast as they can and trying to make ends meet. Sure many times they don't have the time or energy to fully understand they are being used. Does that mean they deserve to be exploited? That sounds like the old arguments by a rapist that woman dressed seductively.
Societies and governments are developed and funded by hard working citizens that believe they are contributing through their taxes and votes to societies that will look out for their interests when they don't have the time and energy to devote to it individually. And for decades that proved true for many hardworking US citizens. Our constitution and checks and balances built into it provided us with those protectionss. But they've been eroded.
Today more than at any other time US citizens are working more jobs and making less than ever before when they can find work. There are more single parent families and stagnant wages and a ever increasing discrepancy between the top and the bottom. But you choose to blame the hard working bottom and blame them for the excess of the top 1 to 2 percent.
You say they deserve it. I say someone that should have been monitoring those with wealth and leasure dropped the ball or sold out.
"Corruption is the only thing the masses in the world respect."
I say it's not the masses that respect "corruption", it's the minority of powerful and rich people that do and they use it to exploit the rest. The poor can't afford to exploit "corruption", they are the victims of it.
"Vote for crooks and killers, then expect to be robbed and then killed."
Amazing that they are still voting, but they still believe our system works. If they are voting for crooks and killers who's vetting these crooks and killers and placing them on the ballot? I think most working people believe someone out there on there tax dollar is doing a little fact checking.
I think it's like this, we have two groups of fat cats deciding what should be done with us, the unwashed masses.
One group finds it's roots among the old Mercantile class, the nouveau riche who believe that the screws can be put to the rest of us without fear because we are all too cowardly and sheep-like to do anything about it.
The second group finds it's ideological roots in the old aristocracy who understand the practicality of a policy of noblesse oblige as a preventative measure against pitchfork, torch, and rotten turnip wielding peasants.
The problem is that neither of these approaches addresses the problem and both lead to systemic decline. We need to do a full audit on the system, we need to reward the virtuous, and punish the unethical. We need to confiscate the assets of the people who gamed the system and encourage the people who innovate and create.
Accountability and oursight is our only hope. The battlecries of "less government" only undermine that end, which is so diabolically magical about it's popularity. We are all idiots if we fall for it. While we allow our correspondence and lives to be monitored in the name of security the rich relax in the security of protected exempt status. Their lives remain private and secure while ours are more and more scrutinized and regulated.
If this is a market system and notice I don't use the word "free" with that, no one needs to rewarded by the society in any other way than that we as consumers choose to purchase their products or services. No mandates are necessary.
Confiscation is also not part of a reasonable resolution unless it can be deemed that someone has avoided their actual responsibility. In which case it's not a confication but a payment of their actual liability.
Hi there :-)
Average people have a right to privacy and that right has been violated in truly outrageous and disgusting ways, I agree. This serves as a mechanism of corporate control of the population by a bunch of unelected people who have bought off our politicians. The role of credit scores falls into this category (as an example) in that people once down cannot get back up as they cannot obtain jobs or decent rates on insurance needed to drive cars to jobs. This falls under gaming the system IMO, creating a sort of caste system that results in exploitation and waste.
I don't think you can move forward with the nation's wealth distribution in it's current configuration as it is the result of decades of corruption. We have a set of laws resulting in economic ground rules that has proven disfunctional on an unimaginable scale. If we can retake our government we will need to audit the whole system, find the bottlenecks, and institute regulatory code to correct the problems. Given the long-standing nature of the problem I think much of this regulation will need to be retroactive which will result in a number of liabilities which do not currently exist. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act anyone :-(
Personally I think a bit of protectionism is in order, especially as our manufacturing capability has been destroyed. Capitalism is a tool, and a good one so long as you recognize that in it's "pure" Ivory Tower type form it is really quite appalling, being that rare thing, an idea more at home in the real world than a perfect one. It is not a thing to get warm and fuzzy about any more than a socket wrench. We have lessons from the English Empire Age lest we forget that, the Potato Famine springs to mind.
@Puck,
My European friends have told me that it is quite important to know one's enemy. They take the time to study the languages and cultures and ways of thinking of the enemy. It would be very useful to have as commonly available knowledge a lot more detailed information on and understanding of the fat cats that we must deal with, how they view the world and the divisions, leaders, and points of contention among them.
Assuming it is as you describe then the arrogance and hubris and ignorance of the nouveau rich is appalling and scary. I would suspect that most of those who gamed the system would be in this group. And I would suspect that the second group whose ideology grew from the old money have concerns with how matters are currently progressing.
Who are the main leaders with influence in the various divisions of the rich? Which journalists or writers or sources might one look to to find more information?
That's a very good question and a very good thought, I'm sitting here on my low perch looking up. The "Libertarians" who have been stealthily doing a takeover of the Party of Lincoln are the very definition of the nouveau rich, or at least their backers are IMO. You've got Koch Brothers in that group, certainly.
On the side hearkening back to the old aristocracy I think you look in the direction of the Democratic party, Warren Buffett seems to espouse some of that ethic though he doesn't have the background.
The Wall Street Journal is a fairly good resource on the rich, the Economist used to be independent enough but seems to have been swallowed by the darkness, it can be a good place to look if you want to see the official line that will be picked up by the cacophony of synchophants.
I do take some of my theorizing from State level politics, from two personalities I got to know fairly well, bit of a baptism by fire actually, as I don't have a whole lot of use for espousing ideas that go against my own interests just to "fit in".
The problem with the approach advocated in this otherwise very fine article is that you are thinking too small. You will not mobilize the public unless you have a message that resonates, you will not have a message that resonates if you think too small. Therefore it takes a Herculean effort to undertake an effort which is compromised from the outset.
I think this resonantes:
"When it becomes obvious to even the President that the economic recovery never existed beyond the bank accounts of the rich, questions will have to be answered."
Although I don't think the current president will ever acknowledge it. He's prospering. When the citizens demand to know what their elected officials are invested in and worth before election and what that figure is after their terms of service, only then will we truly control the situation. I'd love to know how much more money Cheney, Bush, Rumsfield, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Rice and others in their employ left office with, but it's impossible to find. But it would be very telling to know. We used to have legislation that made that information public. But no more. And investigate reporters who could seek this information are now nonexistent.
The only thing we seem to have learned from the "Teapot Dome" scandals is how to avoid another one by the rich and powerful.
I have an uncle who is a good forensic accountant, these things can be figured out if you can get access to the relevant resources.
Never heard of the Teapot Dome scandals before, so thanks for that :-)
The really rich with incomes over $1,000,000.00 live in a fantasy world. They are only interested in buying yachts, ultra cars and mega dollar houses. They may give to charity and pet causes so they can escape paying big taxes.
Some even become wealthy and forget they have relatives.
Personally I could care less about them as they care about me.
Greed, Greed, Greed, and no or little taxes paid.
It will never change.
Never change for "them"
But definately get WORSE for us (middle class).
change you can believe in...!
Maybe it is time to revisit Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto of 1848, and Das Kapital in 1867, to remind ourselves of the motivation for the blood spilled for 80 years that almost eliminated the income discrepancy by the late 1940s/early 1950s before the counter attack on workers by the rich Capitalists under Nixon and then Reagan.
Das Kapital - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Das_Kapital
The Communist Manifesto - http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/roll-over-karl-marx_b_874817.html
"Marx examined the human condition from the perspective of economics. An idealist, he emphasized "universal" principles of group dynamics. He was fascinated by class struggle and capitalism. Influenced by Hegel, Marx subscribed to the concept of inevitability and predicted that capitalism would produce class conflict causing a socialist revolution.
Marx viewed industrial society as a constant struggle between workers (the proletariat) and capitalists (the bourgeoisie). He argued that capitalism always produced a small number of rich and powerful capitalists; if not counteracted, this concentration of power inevitably caused class polarization and, ultimately, a revolution that would destroy capitalism and produce socialism."
I think bringing in Marx would only amount to the end of any movement or discussion that espoused it. Are you a "sock puppet" wishing to derail the discussion?
Socialism ranks right up there with muslim extremist. Very tricky if you are a paid respondent.
What in the world are you talking about, g?
I am talking about paid respondents on forums bringing in radical viewpoints to distract from the real issues and derailing the converstation before it ever gets started. It's common practice now a days. And the surest way to bring down a discussion in progressive forum is to paint it as communist or socialist. And this poster went out of his way to direct this discussion as "Marxist".
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/03/18/023239/US-Military-Commissions-Sock-Puppet-Program
All of these burgeoning "intelligence gathering" companies have received taxpayer dollars to infiltrate social media and internet forums.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8388603/US-military-creates-fake-online-personas.html
If you think these private intel companies aren't targeting US forums you are myopic.
GARDEN: I am glad you brought up the point about the paid private intel companies, since it's far more likely that YOU would be employed by such an item, than Curmudgeon. The Marxist argument is NOT a diversion from the subject under discussion, if anything it could function as an adjunct. Funny how you took no umbrage with the imbecile ARESGODOFWAR, but picked on someone who has integrity, and posts accordingly.
I've also found it quite telling that whenver CD eliminates posts or the site goes down, it's first and foremost those likely here in dishonest capacities who question what's going on... and what anyone else knows.
Yep. The criminals really DO return to the scenes of the crimes.
One of my problems with your comment, g, is that I don't think "communist" is a pejorative, and much less the genius, Karl Marx.
Radical viewpoints go to the heart of real issues because Reality is actually the root. For example: The reality we all face is rapid deterioration of the ecosystems without which we cannot sustain our lives. Capitalism, the evidence is overwhelming, is bent on consuming Nature. A radical viewpoint, a viewpoint close to the center of what is real--something which has existed among some parts of humanity for countless ages, an ancient wisdom--would see capitalism in any form to be detrimental and insane.
Yo, G
Go read the links I have provided.
Then tell me I'm a troll.
Your inane support of the status quo along with Aers....God..whatever rants demonstrate that this article and discussion is bothering the rich who have apparently unleashed their paid minions..:
gardennorcal & ARESGODOFWAR - I'll bet they cut their eye - teeth swiftboating Kerrey
"Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (German pronunciation: [das kapiˈtaːl]) (Capital: Criticism of the Political Economy, in the English translation) is an extensive treatise on political economy written in German by Karl Marx and edited in part by Friedrich Engels. The book is a critical analysis of capitalism. Its first volume was published in 1867."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital
You wouldn't propose a discussion of evolution without any reference to Darwin, would you?
We're not talking about evolution or pure capitalism are we? We're really talking about the US government and the current financial systenm with it's past and implied oversight and accountability. Marxism is really not relevant. Since Marxism was never a factor in it.
To the extent that Marx prophesied that unfettered capitalism would inevitably produce a small minority of rich and powerful plutocrats in conflict with the less wealthy and powerless majority, Marx is highly relevant in this discussion.
RE:You wouldn't propose a discussion of evolution without any reference to Darwin, would you?
Great comment! The answer is no, you wouldn't. And, for those more dense, what is being implied here is that Marx remains the greatest critic of capitalism (as Darwin is the greatest evolutionist). The myriad problems we face: the vast inequities of wealth, the threats to the environment on a planetary scale, war, you name it, ALL FLOW FROM THE CAPITALIST ECONOMIC SYSTEM. Marx has never been more relevant than right now!
"Marx has never been more relevant than right now!"
I'd agree, but there's a problem with these icons of the past. In mainstream discussions Marx is discredited by name alone. You don't even need to know squat about his theories. Someone mentions class and the response is "That's Marxist!", often ending the discussion.
Trying to convince centrists or liberal-elites or Democrat-voters (or whatever we want to call them) things need to change by referencing Marx is going to be an uphill battle.
Perhaps we need some new iconography and language???
http://kiely-flashpoint.blogspot.com/2011/06/lost-between-randian-notions-and.html
So censorship (implied by your own words) would do wonders to further the discussion?
That's why our founders placed regulation of interstate commerce in the 4th amendment. They knew capitalism needed to be heavily regulated in order to work for the good of all.
"Tax the rich,
feed the poor,
till there are no,
rich no more.
I'd love to change the world,
but I don't know what to do..."
A song way ahead of its time, or maybe not, since the same game has been going on since man first arrived
"Sheep," "sheep-like," "hogwash," "fat cats" -- some words taken from some of the comments to this article. It may not be apparent to most liberals, progressives, humanists, and environmentalists who comment here, but these and other kinds of anti-animal remarks/references (such as "subhuman" or "livestock") serve to legitimize the devaluation of non-human beings, as well as to reinforce humanity's hatred and contempt towards them. I see this a lot on this site along with the comments section. Other sentient beings -- who are innocent, vulnerable, and helpless against THE species responsible for the turning this planet into the malignant mess it now is -- DO NOT DESERVE to be devalued and mocked!
No disrespect intended. I do have a fat cat in residence, she goes to a great deal of trouble to hoard all the cat boxes, food bowls and water dishes. If the other cat tries to use any of these things and she sees it, she comes over and kicks them out (no kidding). She can't possibly use three litter pans at one time, she just doesn't want anyone else using them, I guess.
I also know that sheep are known for their lack of aggressiveness, you walk up and they just run away. They will actually huddle together so tightly in a thunderstorm that some will die, smothered.
It's a big wide world out there, full of examples of behavior in the animal kingdom that sometimes mirrors our own.
Ewes aren't aggressive but will occasionally butt each other. Rams are much more aggressive and you need to keep your eye on them when you are in the same pasture. I've made the mistake of not paying enough attention to them a couple of times and I can tell you it hurts when they hit you. Each sheep has its own character. If they had a lot of human contact when they are young they are likely to come over for a neck scratch or to request that you get them a bit of that greener grass on the other side of the fence. If they didn't get that early contact they're more stand-offish.
We don't get many thunderstorms out here so I couldn't comment on huddling together to that extent. Our flock isn't large enough for that to happen anyway.
It seems to me that there is too little discussion of where the money that gets created is placed. It is not created by the printing presses but mostly is created by bankers when they create loans. The new money tends to flow back to the bankers, oil interests, and other large interests. Usually it goes through several hands before it reaches the hands and vaults of the elites. Part of the problem is that more and more the newly created money gets placed where it does not much go through the hands and pockets of the vast majority of us and we benefit less and less from its flow.
For example, money might be borrowed to build a manufacturing plant or it might be borrowed to buy out a competitor. In both cases the rich will get richer. When it is borrowed for the manufacturing plant many jobs are created and the money flows through our hands on the way to the top. When it is used to buy out a competitor no jobs are created as the company will reduce the workforce to pay back the loan and less money flows through our hands in this case.
What I am attempting to say is that we need to look more closely at where new money is being placed into the system. We need to look at how it flows after that. If most of the people do not have sufficient money flowing through their hands then adjustments need to be made so that more of the new money that gets put into the system flows through more hands on its way to the elites.
For most of the past eight decades we have in part managed the flow of money in the economy by using taxation to divert the flow of money so as to fund public interests, whether infrastructure, medicare, pensions, unemployment insurance, education, and the like. All these involve a lot of jobs and put money in the hands of the people and help drive demand-side economics. To get their hands on this money the elites must provide us something in return.
What is happening now is that the elites are demanding that we stop using taxation to divert the flow of money in the system to the advantage of the poor and the commons. Instead we should cut public spending and balance the budget. They are demanding that we have even less control over the creation and flow of money in the economy, and that we get out of their way.
In part this is because there is a limit on how much money can be flowing through the system if it is to remain stable. While the money spent on infrastructure, education, pensions, health-care, and so on gets to the elites eventually, the spending of it in this way reduces the amount of money that the elites can be creating for other purposes.
To what extent are these other purposes speculation? To what extent the neoCon bankers' push for absolute world control? Neither is needed or in our interests.
In theory, instead of solely using taxation and borrowings to divert some flow of money to finance infrastructure projects, education, pensions, health-care and the like we could in addition create some money to add to the economy at those points. In doing so we would be less dependent on taxation and borrowing. As the amount of money that can safely be flowing through the system is limited this would at times require balance with the amount of money that private interests create and put into circulation elsewhere in the economy, possibly by using a combination of regulation and taxation. Control of the creation and placement of money plus the use of taxation are available tools to use to manage the flow of money through the economy. They can be used to restore and maintain some balance between public and private wealth.
Given that the management of the money supply by private interests has not much benefited us recently it is past time that we reconsider our current arrangements with them. Management of the money supply is controlled by the FED which is controlled by the big banks. Control of the FED was not granted to the bankers by an act of God, but instead rather stealthily and quietly by elected representatives and is thus not set in stone.
Excellent, and quite right. But it's not just neo-cons, but also neo-librals. Follow the money. Neither con nor liberal is free from the curse. And the working poor while they remain ignorant will always pay. Until they demand something better.
MEMENTO: Thank you for patiently laying out the fiscal mechanics, brick by brick.
There are several points I'd like to add. One is that of cost externalization added to how the economy's GNP is measured. The present economic system counts as a plus, items that cause damage. Treating cancer, when the operation is seen as a medical product, ends up on the plus side of the balance sheet. What once was a forest, converted into X number of tons of wood, is also seen as a plus on the proverbial balance sheet. What's lost in the way of public health and/or a natural resource is of no consequence to those who extract profit, and then move on.
In other words, costs are measured largely through a rubric consistent with the model of Disaster Capitalism.
That brings me to a second point: that the elites, or global corporations, currently owe their allegiance to no sovereign nation (like Blackwater, and its mercenery troops for hire); and thus no longer feel a particular need to invest in American infrastructure, or real education, for that matter. Truly like the saying goes: "They've moved on."
So we have these paralyzing factors to contend with:
1. Elites extract profit from circumstances that continue to cost citizens, yet citizens are the ones left to negotiate the ravages.
2. What profit itself means is an insult to things of lasting worth
3. Those who depended on America for their initial success, now can take advantage of the vast overseas marketplace, a dearth of environmental laws, and incredibly cheap labor.. and thus leave America like a carcass, its meat mostly devoured.
Many laws were based on the premise of inherent integrity. With that gone missing from the majority of business (and governmental) equations, what we're largely left witih is YOY just when nature is also breaking down.
Notions like security are fast becoming quaint. And as for accountability, the fiscal elites have moved on with respect to that notion, as well.
Your post brings the 3-part documentary series "The Corporation" to mind. {I havn't read the book yet}...
I wish all Americans would watch this eye opening testimonial along with "Orwell Rolls in His Grave" and Naomi Kleins Book "The Shock Doctrine: The rise in Disaster Capitalism"....
Great Post SR!!!
Soon this nation will collapse and then the 400 Families will buy it all up.
These are the Neo-Carpetbaggers.
I hope I’m not offending anyone, but to me it seems perfectly clear there’s a reason behind all this downturn idiocy. They can’t have got it all wrong all of a sudden, they know too well where this is leading to and they act like they’re quite happy with that. I presume the oil must be gone – peak oil and other stuff you don’t hear so much about as before it happened – so they want us gone as well. With Earth running out of nature, there’s an immediate need for Lebensraum. Since people do not forget their history – I know, we don’t learn from it, but what I want to say is the bad ideas sort of get stuck in our systems – they will likely apply the same tactics of dehumanising which worked so well for the Nazi’s. This is not something to revel in or drool over, this is a lesson to contemplate. I wish you strength. Lokalize it.
Isn't it clear that capitalism with its cycles of bubbles and crashes, "free" markets and wage slaves and its devouring of the natural world which is our support system has done zip for the masses of people and in fact it has merely substituted another form of insecurity from what must have faced pre-historic man? This time Labor needs to get it right.
More to the point:
Conservatives Are Destroying the Economy
The sooner the economy gets completely trashed, the better off the planet and people will be. As long as there is no alternative but to grow local self-reliant economies as was starting to happen during the Depression before FDR rescued the rich.
I don't know if I can agree with your first sentence, but my thought on your second sentence is that -->
IF we are going to end up "grow(ing) local self-reliant economies as was starting to happen during the Depression before FDR rescued the rich" -->
THEN it would be useful to review the anarchist writings and thought of that time so as to understand better in the present what likely will be happening, what will probably work or not work, and what went wrong then and why.
It is odd that the rich are destroying their own consumer base? I guess greed has no limits on its insanity. The only solution is to re-regulate capital flows so US wealth cannot leave the USA. No other answer to globalization. China is now starting to collapse; and oil is getting short. Things are only going to get much worse as the global system continues to implode. This is just the beginning of the great depression/2--not its recovery phase as the media imagined. But then what do they ever get right? Weiner's weenie? ha, ha. There are at least ten years of this misery left, and more if austerity is continued... Much more.
If Obama the fool cuts a deal with the Republicans anywhere near what they want it will just be worse. Obama will lose re-election and he will deserve it. By kissing the ass of the right wingers he will be destroying himself. Just like he blew his first 100 days by not taking over the banks and forcing through a 2-3 trillion dollar stimulus without tax cuts for the rich, etc. I doubt he can see that.
But then such tragic figures of history never do; do they?
Please STOP attacking posters at a personal level. And when you're attacked, please don't counter attack.
We need to work toward practical solutions and not be diverted by insults. Think of it as practice when up against real opposition who love to divert opposition with insults and irrelevancies.
Thank You.
Divide and conquer?
Right Cassandra, lots of projecting going on. When you're identified with something, you will try to defend and/or attack it. That said, on the one side you have the victim mentality that assigns blame, and the other side to expect hypnotized people to act as if they weren't hypnotized. For every act of major corruption, there are millions of acts of minor corruption, or ones that exercise the same exploitative principle. People do NOT WISH TO SEE how and why they are complicit; they pad and buffer it, and that reinforces and keeps the hypnosis in place. Why? It is exceedingly uncomfortable to wake up.
Seems to me that the operative question here should be, what can we do, if anything, to reverse this disturbing takeover by the rich people? We haven't got money, they do, so how do we beat them at their own game? I don't see any answer possible. In my humble estimation, we've gone past the tipping point where the downward slide to fascism can be reversed. It's already here, so we're pretty much stuck with it. And the fact that people keep voting against their own economic self interest because they lack the skills to think critically is another problem. Our educational system has failed people to where they are mindless drones who vote for the very people who will screw them seven ways from Sunday. They want it that way. They want to keep us stupid and ignorant so that we can keep voting for their candidates. I really don't think that there's a damn thing we can do anymore. Our country's best days are behind us. China is ascendant and poised to be the next big superpower in the world, so we may as well accept that we're slowly descending into a fascist third world country that doesn't make anything anymore and is wholly owned by the corporations and has no real democracy.
Never thought I'd live to see the day our country's day was over, but that's where we are now. It's all downhill from here, folks. We can't fix what we don't have the money or power to be able to do anything about. Remember, he who dies with the most money wins. They've got the most money. We've just got worthless homes, bills piling higher than our declining salaries can pay and nothing to show for all of our hard work. It's so damned depressing...........and we can't even afford to see a doctor for so much as a routine check up because they've made it too expensive for us to bother to do so because there's no such thing as health insurance anymore. I consider myself to be uninsured now because I may as well have nothing for all my insurance is worth, because it pays for literally NOTHING. All of my bills come out of my own pocket and I can't afford that anymore, so I am learning all I can about natural remedies to treat myself whenever I get sick or hurt. Plenty of good plants that grow in the area can be harvested from nearby woods and roadsides that can treat a host of ailments for free. Why pay Big Pharma when you can harvest your own meds for free while out walking or driving?
It's getting to where we literally have to fend for ourselves and stop relying on "the man", "the system" or whatever you want to call it. If I could, I'd grow all of my own food instead of wasting money at the grocery store buying their overpriced food. So take back your life and stop feeding "the man". Starve the beast. Become self reliant if you can. Maybe that's the only way to stop them in their tracks. Don't play into their hands. It's all such a sham meant to benefit the wealthiest few at your own expense.
"Remember, he who dies with the most money wins. They've got the most money. We've just got worthless homes, bills piling higher than our declining salaries can pay and nothing to show for all of our hard work. It's so damned depressing......"
Hmmmmm. Maybe it's time to abandon "their" monetary system. It's a fraud anyway, so what would it take? How can this be done; we need to ignore them, push them aside.
Oh yes. Disengage to whatever extent you can. Many or most of us are stuck in some aspect of the "system", but do we have to grow grass in our yard (instead of vegetables), and then put gasoline into the mower to cut it on the weekend after giving 60 hours to a corporation in hopes that entity will provide for you and your future?
Many complain of the all-encompassing system we are born into and have no personal control over, but do we really have to have to be plugged into every orifice of the beast, or is it giving the beast access to our every orifice to be screwed?
To whatever extent you/me/we can, we should rebuild localized communities. This will have some benefits: set an example of simple and desirable living, prepare a pattern to take up some slack during the Decline, allow some individuals to live their lives, kind of like an incubator or an ark. It could be an opportunity to work out some of the details of such living arrangements so that eventually there could be a massive movement to such a sustainable lifestyle, assuming we can still inhabit our planet.
Permaculture, a la David Blume, is my best choice. This permaculture movement actually has some solutions and ideas, rather than doom and gloom and complaints.
A life characterized by caring community, simple joys of simple living, a society that admires selflessness instead of rapaciousness, these are things worth working toward and fighting for.
sLiM says ignore them, push them aside. i agree; carry on in a different "dimension", (at least until the brownshirts show up at your commune and take you away to re-educaton camps--but that's another story...)
We cannot afford to disengage politically, I think, but we do not have to subscribe to the "most toys wins" mentality, and I dare say that we can actually talk sense to some hypnotized people and maybe wake them up. I have hope.
Great post, Joe Noble. Your point about lawns vs. vegetables is a great example of withdrawing from the system and the symbolism of it is profound, IMO. First of all, although lawns are nice to look at, they are energy intensive. More than that, they are one of those pointless luxuries originally available only to the aristocrats in Europe which then became available to more people after the conquest and colonization of the "New World".
In the book "How the Rich Are Destroying the Earth", Hervé Kempf talks about this "aspirational" aspect of consumption. People in general try to mimic the consumptive habits of the rich or those above them. When such things finally become available to more people down the line, the rich would have moved on to even more expensive luxuries. As more people adopt such wasteful consumption, a very heavy price is paid by way of environmental destruction.
If we could only look around with a different set of eyes without taking anything for granted, I'm sure we can find lots of things we can simply do without. Simply walking away from certain types of consumption, including wasteful forms of "entertainment" can free up so much resources, especially time and energy to contemplate more serious collective action to avoid disaster due to climate change.
There can be no selfless society as long as there are selfs. You don't need to obliviate identity simply to live in a society where might doesn't make right.
Joe Noble's post mentioned "a society that **admires** selflessness instead of rapaciousness" - not a "selfless society". In any society, there will be individuals at various points in time who can be considered largely "selfless" and these are indeed admired by a lot of people. And during times of crisis, leaders who can rise above their narrow selfish interests can inspire ordinary people to rise above their narrow selfishness too, if only for a brief while. It's when a society that does not have the capacity to even recognize and appreciate selfless action by others that it descends into chaos and eventual misery.