"... Corporate capitalism is supranational . It owes no loyalty to any nation-state. It uses the projection of military power by the United States to protect and advance its economic interests but at the same time cannibalizes the U.S., dismantling its democratic institutions, allowing its infrastructure to decay and deindustrializing its factory centers to ship manufacturing abroad to regions where workers are treated as serfs. ..."
"... Resistance to this global cabal of corporate oligarchs must also be supranational. It must build alliances with workers around the globe. It must defy the liberal institutions, including the Democratic Party, which betray workers. It is this betrayal that has given rise to fascist and protofascist movements in Europe and other countries ..."
"... Capitalism, at its core, is about the commodification of human beings and the natural world for exploitation and profit. To increase profit, it constantly seeks to reduce the cost of labor and demolish the regulations and laws that protect the common good. But as capitalism ravages the social fabric, it damages, like any parasite, the host that allows it to exist. It unleashes dark, uncontrollable yearnings among an enraged population that threaten capitalism itself. ..."
"... "We live in a global economy, highly interconnected," North went on. "A globalized process of production, financial system. The ruling class has an international policy. They organize themselves on an international scale. The labor movement has remained organized on a national basis. It has been completely incapable of answering this [ruling-class policy]. Therefore, it falls behind various national protectionist programs. The trade unions support Trump." ..."
"... "How many times can you turn on a mainstream news like CNN and expect to hear the word 'capitalism' discussed? Bernie [Sanders] did one thing. He called himself a democratic socialist , which was a bit transformational simply in terms of rhetoric. He's saying there's something other than capitalism that we ought to be talking about." ..."
"... When feminism was turned into that kind of leaning in, it created an identity politics that legitimizes the very system that needs to be critiqued. The early feminists were overtly socialists. As was [Martin Luther] King. But all that got erased." ..."
"... "The left became a kind of grab bag of discrete, siloed identity movements," Derber said. "This is very connected to moral purity. You're concerned about your advancement within the existing system. You're competing against others within the existing system. Everyone else has privilege. You're just concerned about getting your fair share." ..."
"... "Identity politics is to a large degree a right-wing discourse," Derber said. "It focuses on tribalism tied in modern times to nationalism, which is always militaristic. When you break the left into these siloed identity politics, which are not contextualized, you easily get into this dogmatic fundamentalism. The identity politics of the left reproduces the worse sociopathic features of the system as a whole. It's scary." ..."
There will be no economic or political justice for the poor, people of color, women or
workers within the framework of global, corporate capitalism. Corporate capitalism, which uses
identity politics ,
multiculturalism and racial justice to masquerade as politics, will never halt the rising
social inequality, unchecked militarism, evisceration of civil liberties and omnipotence of the
organs of security and surveillance. Corporate capitalism cannot be reformed, despite its
continually rebranding itself. The longer the self-identified left and liberal class seek to
work within a system that the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin calls " inverted
totalitarianism ," the more the noose will be tightened around our necks. If we do not rise
up to bring government and financial systems under public control -- which includes
nationalizing banks, the fossil fuel industry and the arms industry -- we will continue to be
victims.
Corporate capitalism is
supranational . It owes no loyalty to any nation-state. It uses the projection of military
power by the United States to protect and advance its economic interests but at the same time
cannibalizes the U.S., dismantling its democratic institutions, allowing its infrastructure to
decay and deindustrializing its factory centers to ship manufacturing abroad to regions where
workers are treated as serfs.
Resistance to this global cabal of corporate oligarchs must also be supranational. It must
build alliances with workers around the globe. It must defy the liberal institutions, including
the Democratic Party, which betray workers. It is this betrayal that has given rise to fascist
and protofascist movements in Europe and other countries. Donald Trump would never have been
elected but for this betrayal. We will build a global movement powerful enough to bring down
corporate capitalism or witness the rise of a new, supranational totalitarianism.
The left, seduced by the culture wars and identity politics, largely ignores the primacy of
capitalism and the class struggle. As long as unregulated capitalism reigns supreme, all
social, economic, cultural and political change will be cosmetic. Capitalism, at its core, is
about the commodification of human
beings and the natural world for exploitation and profit. To increase profit, it constantly
seeks to reduce the cost of labor and demolish the regulations and laws that protect the common
good. But as capitalism ravages the social fabric, it damages, like any parasite, the host that
allows it to exist. It unleashes dark, uncontrollable yearnings among an enraged population
that threaten capitalism itself.
"This is a crisis of global dimensions," David North , the national chairman
of the Socialist Equality Party in the
United States, told me when we spoke in New York. "It is a crisis that dominates every element
of American politics. The response that we're seeing, the astonishing changes in the state of
the government, in the decay of political life, the astonishingly low level of political and
intellectual discourse, is in a certain sense an expression of the bewilderment of the ruling
elite to what it's going through."
"We can expect a monumental explosion of class struggle in the United States," he said. "I
think this country is a social powder keg. There is an anger that exists over working
conditions and social inequality. However [much] they may be confused on many questions,
workers in this country have a deep belief in democratic rights. We totally reject the
narrative that the working class is racist. I think this has been the narrative pushed by the
pseudo-left, middle-class groups who are drunk on identity politics, which have a vested
interest in constantly distracting people from the essential class differences that exist in
the society. Dividing everyone up on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference fails to
address the major problem."
North argues, correctly, that capitalism by its nature lurches from crisis to crisis. This
makes our current predicament similar to past crises.
"All the unanswered questions of the 20th century -- the basic problem of the nation-state
system, the reactionary character of private ownership with the means of production, corporate
power, all of these issues which led to the first and Second world wars -- are with us again,
and add to that fascism," he said.
"We live in a global economy, highly interconnected," North went on. "A globalized process
of production, financial system. The ruling class has an international policy. They organize
themselves on an international scale. The labor movement has remained organized on a national
basis. It has been completely incapable of answering this [ruling-class policy]. Therefore, it
falls behind various national protectionist programs. The trade unions support Trump."
"We don't really have a left because we don't have conversations about capitalism," Derber
said. "How many times can you turn on a mainstream news like CNN and expect to hear the word
'capitalism' discussed? Bernie [Sanders] did one thing. He
called himself a democratic socialist , which was a bit transformational simply in terms of
rhetoric. He's saying there's something other than capitalism that we ought to be talking
about."
"As the [capitalist] system universalizes and becomes more and more intersectional, we need
intersectional resistance," Derber said. "At the end of the 1960s, when I was getting my own
political education, the universalizing dimensions of the left, which was growing in the '60s,
fell apart. The women began to feel their issues were not being addressed. They were treated
badly by white males, student leaders. Blacks, Panthers, began to feel the whites could not
speak for race issues. They developed separate organizations. The upshot was the left lost its
universalizing character. It no longer dealt with the intersection of all these issues within
the context of a militarized, capitalist, hegemonic American empire. It treated politics as
siloed group identity problems. Women had glass ceilings. Same with blacks. Same with
gays."
The loss of this intersectionality was deadly. Instead of focusing on the plight of all of
the oppressed, oppressed groups began to seek representation for their own members within
capitalist structures.
"Let's take a modern version of this," Derber said. " Sheryl Sandberg , the COO of
Facebook, she did a third-wave feminism thing. She said 'lean in.' It captures this identity
politics that has become toxic on the left. What does 'lean in' mean? It means women should
lean in and go as far as they can in the corporation. They should become, as she has, a major,
wealthy executive of a leading corporation. When feminism was turned into that kind of leaning
in, it created an identity politics that legitimizes the very system that needs to be
critiqued. The early feminists were overtly socialists. As was [Martin Luther] King. But all
that got erased."
"The left became a kind of grab bag of discrete, siloed identity movements," Derber
said. "This is very connected to moral purity. You're concerned about your advancement within
the existing system. You're competing against others within the existing system. Everyone else
has privilege. You're just concerned about getting your fair share."
"People in movements are products of the system they're fighting," he continued. "We're all
raised in a capitalistic, individualistic, egoistic culture, so it's not surprising. And it has
to be consciously recognized and struggled against. Everybody in movements has been brought up
in systems they're repulsed by. This has created a structural transformation of the left. The
left offers no broad critique of the political economy of capitalism. It's largely an
identity-politics party. It focuses on reforms for blacks and women and so forth. But it
doesn't offer a contextual analysis within capitalism."
Derber, like North, argues that the left's myopic, siloed politics paved the way for
right-wing, nativist, protofascist movements around the globe as well as the ascendancy of
Trump.
"When you bring politics down to simply about helping your group get a piece of the pie, you
lose that systemic analysis," he said. "You're fragmented. You don't have natural connections
or solidarity with other groups. You don't see the larger systemic context. By saying I want,
as a gay person, to fight in the military, in a funny way you're legitimating the American
empire. If you were living in Nazi Germany, would you say I want the right of a gay person to
fight in combat with the Nazi soldiers?"
"I don't want to say we should eliminate all identity politics," he said. "But any identity
politics has to be done within the framework of understanding the larger political economy.
That's been stripped away and erased. Even on the left, you cannot find a deep conversation
about capitalism and militarized capitalism. It's just been erased. That's why Trump came in.
He unified a kind of very powerful right-wing identity politics built around nationalism,
militarism and the exceptionalism of the American empire."
"Identity politics is to a large degree a right-wing discourse," Derber said. "It focuses on
tribalism tied in modern times to nationalism, which is always militaristic. When you break the
left into these siloed identity politics, which are not contextualized, you easily get into
this dogmatic fundamentalism. The identity politics of the left reproduces the worse
sociopathic features of the system as a whole. It's scary."
"How much of the left," he asked, "is reproducing what we are seeing in the society that
we're fighting?"
By abetting the ad industry, universities are leading us into temptation, when they
should be enlightening us
... ... ...
I ask because, while considering the frenzy
of consumerism that rises beyond its usual planet-trashing levels at this time of year, I
recently stumbled across a paper that astonished
me . It was written by academics at public universities in the Netherlands and the US.
Their purpose seemed to me starkly at odds with the public interest. They sought to identify
"the different ways in which consumers resist advertising, and the tactics that can be used to
counter or avoid such resistance".
Among the "neutralising" techniques it highlighted were "disguising the persuasive intent of
the message"; distracting our attention by using confusing phrases that make it harder to focus
on the advertiser's intentions; and "using cognitive depletion as a tactic for reducing
consumers' ability to contest messages". This means hitting us with enough advertisements to
exhaust our mental resources, breaking down our capacity to think.
Intrigued, I started looking for other academic papers on the same theme, and found an
entire literature. There were articles on every imaginable aspect of resistance, and helpful
tips on overcoming it. For example, I came across a paper that counsels advertisers on how to
rebuild public trust when the celebrity they work with gets into trouble. Rather than dumping
this lucrative asset, the researchers advised that the best means to enhance "the authentic
persuasive appeal of a celebrity endorser" whose standing has slipped is to get them to display
"a Duchenne smile", otherwise known as "a genuine smile". It precisely anatomised such smiles,
showed how to spot them, and discussed the "construction" of sincerity and "genuineness": a
magnificent exercise in inauthentic authenticity.
Another paper considered how
to persuade sceptical people to accept a company's corporate social responsibility claims,
especially when these claims conflict with the company's overall objectives. (An obvious
example is ExxonMobil's attempts to convince people that it is environmentally responsible,
because it is researching algal fuels that could one day reduce CO2 – even as it
continues to
pump millions of barrels of fossil oil a day ). I hoped the paper would recommend that the
best means of persuading people is for a company to change its practices. Instead, the authors'
research showed how images and statements could be cleverly combined to "minimise stakeholder
scepticism".
A further
paper discussed advertisements that work by stimulating
Fomo – fear of missing out . It noted that such ads work through "controlled
motivation", which is "anathema to wellbeing". Fomo ads, the paper explained, tend to cause
significant discomfort to those who notice them. It then went on to show how an improved
understanding of people's responses "provides the opportunity to enhance the effectiveness of
Fomo as a purchase trigger". One tactic it proposed is to keep stimulating the fear of missing
out, during and after the decision to buy. This, it suggested, will make people more
susceptible to further ads on the same lines.
Yes, I know: I work in an industry that receives most of its income from advertising, so I
am complicit in this too. But so are we all. Advertising – with its destructive
impacts on the living planet, our peace of mind and our free will – sits at the heart of
our growth-based economy. This gives us all the more reason to challenge it. Among the places
in which the challenge should begin are universities, and the academic societies that are
supposed to set and uphold ethical standards. If they cannot swim against the currents of
constructed desire and constructed thought, who can?
Our proposals are based on the creation of a Budget for democratization which would be
debated and voted by a sovereign European Assembly. This will at last enable Europe to equip
itself with a public institution which is both capable of dealing with crises in Europe
immediately and of producing a set of fundamental public and social goods and services in the
framework of a lasting and solidarity-based economy. In this way, the promise made as far back
as the Treaty of Rome of 'improving living and working conditions' will finally become
meaningful.
This Budget, if the European Assembly so desires, will be financed by four major European
taxes, the tangible markers of this European solidarity. These will apply to the profits of
major firms, the top incomes (over 200,000 Euros per annum), the highest wealth owners (over 1
million Euros) and the carbon emissions (with a minimum price of 30 Euros per tonne). If it is
fixed at 4% of GDP, as we propose, this budget could finance research, training and the
European universities, an ambitious investment programme to transform our model of economic
growth, the financing of the reception and integration of migrants and the support of those
involved in operating the transformation. It could also give some budgetary leeway to member
States to reduce the regressive taxation which weighs on salaries or consumption.
The issue here is not one of creating a 'Transfer payments Europe' which would endeavour to
take money from the 'virtuous' countries to give it to those who are less so. The project for a
Treaty of Democratization ( www.tdem.eu )
states this explicitly by limiting the gap between expenditure deducted and income paid by a
country to a threshold of 0.1% of its GDP. This threshold can be raised in case there is a
consensus to do so, but the real issue is elsewhere: it is primarily a question of reducing the
inequality within the different countries and of investing in the future of
all Europeans, beginning of course with the youngest amongst them, with no
single country having preference. This computation does exclude spending that benefit
equally to all countries, such as policies to curb global warming. Because it will finance
European public goods benefiting all countries, the Budget for democratization will de facto
also foster convergence between countries.
Because we must act quickly but we must also get Europe out of the present technocratic
impasse, we propose the creation of a European Assembly. This will enable these new European
taxes to be debated and voted as also the budget for democratization. This European Assembly
can be created without changing the existing European treaties.
This European Assembly would of course have to communicate with the present decision-making
institutions (in particular the Eurogroup in which the Ministers for Finance in the Euro zone
meet informally every month). But, in cases of disagreement, the Assembly would have the
final word. If not, its capacity to be a locus for a new transnational, political
space where parties, social movements and NGOs would finally be able to express
themselves, would be compromised. Equally its actual effectiveness, since the issue is one of
finally extricating Europe from the eternal inertia of inter-governmental negotiations, would
be at stake. We should bear in mind that the rule of fiscal unanimity in force in the European
Union has for years blocked the adoption of any European tax and sustains the eternal evasion
into fiscal dumping by the rich and most mobile, a practice which continues to this day despite
all the speeches. This will go on if other decision-making rules are not set up.
"... What is neoliberalism? A programme for destroying collective structures which may impede the pure market logic. ..."
"... The movement toward the neoliberal utopia of a pure and perfect market is made possible by the politics of financial deregulation. And it is achieved through the transformative and, it must be said, destructive action of all of the political measures (of which the most recent is the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), designed to protect foreign corporations and their investments from national states) that aim to call into question any and all collective structures that could serve as an obstacle to the logic of the pure market: the nation, whose space to manoeuvre continually decreases; work groups, for example through the individualisation of salaries and of careers as a function of individual competences, with the consequent atomisation of workers; collectives for the defence of the rights of workers, unions, associations, cooperatives; even the family, which loses part of its control over consumption through the constitution of markets by age groups. ..."
"... The neoliberal programme draws its social power from the political and economic power of those whose interests it expresses: stockholders, financial operators, industrialists, conservative or social-democratic politicians who have been converted to the reassuring layoffs of laisser-faire, high-level financial officials eager to impose policies advocating their own extinction because, unlike the managers of firms, they run no risk of having eventually to pay the consequences. Neoliberalism tends on the whole to favour severing the economy from social realities and thereby constructing, in reality, an economic system conforming to its description in pure theory, that is a sort of logical machine that presents itself as a chain of constraints regulating economic agents. ..."
"... This structural violence also weighs on what is called the labour contract (wisely rationalised and rendered unreal by the "theory of contracts"). Organisational discourse has never talked as much of trust, co-operation, loyalty, and organisational culture as in an era when adherence to the organisation is obtained at each moment by eliminating all temporal guarantees of employment (three-quarters of hires are for fixed duration, the proportion of temporary employees keeps rising, employment "at will" and the right to fire an individual tend to be freed from any restriction). ..."
"... How could we not make a special place among these collectives, associations, unions, and parties for the state: the nation-state, or better yet the supranational state - a European state on the way toward a world state - capable of effectively controlling and taxing the profits earned in the financial markets and, above of all, of counteracting the destructive impact that the latter have on the labour market. This could be done with the aid of labour unions by organising the elaboration and defence of the public interest . Like it or not, the public interest will never emerge, even at the cost of a few mathematical errors, from the vision of accountants (in an earlier period one would have said of "shopkeepers") that the new belief system presents as the supreme form of human accomplishment. ..."
What is neoliberalism? A programme for destroying collective structures which may impede the pure market logic.
As the dominant discourse would have it, the economic world is a pure and perfect order, implacably unrolling the logic of its
predictable consequences, and prompt to repress all violations by the sanctions that it inflicts, either automatically or -- more
unusually -- through the intermediary of its armed extensions, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the policies they impose: reducing labour costs, reducing public expenditures and making work
more flexible. Is the dominant discourse right? What if, in reality, this economic order were no more than the implementation of
a utopia - the utopia of neoliberalism - thus converted into a political problem ? One that, with the aid of the economic
theory that it proclaims, succeeds in conceiving of itself as the scientific description of reality?
This tutelary theory is a pure mathematical fiction. From the start it has been founded on a formidable abstraction. For, in the
name of a narrow and strict conception of rationality as individual rationality, it brackets the economic and social conditions of
rational orientations and the economic and social structures that are the condition of their application.
To give the measure of this omission, it is enough to think just of the educational system. Education is never taken account of
as such at a time when it plays a determining role in the production of goods and services as in the production of the producers
themselves. From this sort of original sin, inscribed in the Walrasian myth (
1 ) of "pure theory", flow all of the deficiencies and
faults of the discipline of economics and the fatal obstinacy with which it attaches itself to the arbitrary opposition which it
induces, through its mere existence, between a properly economic logic, based on competition and efficiency, and social logic, which
is subject to the rule of fairness.
That said, this "theory" that is desocialised and dehistoricised at its roots has, today more than ever, the means of making
itself true and empirically verifiable. In effect, neoliberal discourse is not just one discourse among many. Rather, it is a
"strong discourse" - the way psychiatric discourse is in an asylum, in Erving Goffman's analysis (
2 ) . It is so strong and so hard to combat only because
it has on its side all of the forces of a world of relations of forces, a world that it contributes to making what it is. It does
this most notably by orienting the economic choices of those who dominate economic relationships. It thus adds its own symbolic force
to these relations of forces. In the name of this scientific programme, converted into a plan of political action, an immense
political project is underway, although its status as such is denied because it appears to be purely negative. This project aims
to create the conditions under which the "theory" can be realised and can function: a programme of the methodical destruction
of collectives .
The movement toward the neoliberal utopia of a pure and perfect market is made possible by the politics of financial deregulation.
And it is achieved through the transformative and, it must be said, destructive action of all of the political measures (of
which the most recent is the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), designed to protect foreign corporations and their investments
from national states) that aim to call into question any and all collective structures that could serve as an obstacle to
the logic of the pure market: the nation, whose space to manoeuvre continually decreases; work groups, for example through the individualisation
of salaries and of careers as a function of individual competences, with the consequent atomisation of workers; collectives for the
defence of the rights of workers, unions, associations, cooperatives; even the family, which loses part of its control over consumption
through the constitution of markets by age groups.
The neoliberal programme draws its social power from the political and economic power of those whose interests it expresses:
stockholders, financial operators, industrialists, conservative or social-democratic politicians who have been converted to the reassuring
layoffs of laisser-faire, high-level financial officials eager to impose policies advocating their own extinction because, unlike
the managers of firms, they run no risk of having eventually to pay the consequences. Neoliberalism tends on the whole to favour
severing the economy from social realities and thereby constructing, in reality, an economic system conforming to its description
in pure theory, that is a sort of logical machine that presents itself as a chain of constraints regulating economic agents.
The globalisation of financial markets, when joined with the progress of information technology, ensures an unprecedented mobility
of capital. It gives investors concerned with the short-term profitability of their investments the possibility of permanently comparing
the profitability of the largest corporations and, in consequence, penalising these firms' relative setbacks. Subjected to this permanent
threat, the corporations themselves have to adjust more and more rapidly to the exigencies of the markets, under penalty of "losing
the market's confidence", as they say, as well as the support of their stockholders. The latter, anxious to obtain short-term profits,
are more and more able to impose their will on managers, using financial directorates to establish the rules under which managers
operate and to shape their policies regarding hiring, employment, and wages.
Thus the absolute reign of flexibility is established, with employees being hiring on fixed-term contracts or on a temporary basis
and repeated corporate restructurings and, within the firm itself, competition among autonomous divisions as well as among teams
forced to perform multiple functions. Finally, this competition is extended to individuals themselves, through the individualisation
of the wage relationship: establishment of individual performance objectives, individual performance evaluations, permanent evaluation,
individual salary increases or granting of bonuses as a function of competence and of individual merit; individualised career paths;
strategies of "delegating responsibility" tending to ensure the self-exploitation of staff who, simple wage labourers in relations
of strong hierarchical dependence, are at the same time held responsible for their sales, their products, their branch, their store,
etc. as though they were independent contractors. This pressure toward "self-control" extends workers' "involvement" according to
the techniques of "participative management" considerably beyond management level. All of these are techniques of rational domination
that impose over-involvement in work (and not only among management) and work under emergency or high-stress conditions. And they
converge to weaken or abolish collective standards or solidarities (
3 ) .
In this way, a Darwinian world emerges - it is the struggle of all against all at all levels of the hierarchy, which finds support
through everyone clinging to their job and organisation under conditions of insecurity, suffering, and stress. Without a doubt, the
practical establishment of this world of struggle would not succeed so completely without the complicity of all of the precarious
arrangements that produce insecurity and of the existence of a reserve army of employees rendered docile by these social processes
that make their situations precarious, as well as by the permanent threat of unemployment. This reserve army exists at all levels
of the hierarchy, even at the higher levels, especially among managers. The ultimate foundation of this entire economic order placed
under the sign of freedom is in effect the structural violence of unemployment, of the insecurity of job tenure and the menace
of layoff that it implies. The condition of the "harmonious" functioning of the individualist micro-economic model is a mass phenomenon,
the existence of a reserve army of the unemployed.
This structural violence also weighs on what is called the labour contract (wisely rationalised and rendered unreal by the
"theory of contracts"). Organisational discourse has never talked as much of trust, co-operation, loyalty, and organisational culture
as in an era when adherence to the organisation is obtained at each moment by eliminating all temporal guarantees of employment (three-quarters
of hires are for fixed duration, the proportion of temporary employees keeps rising, employment "at will" and the right to fire an
individual tend to be freed from any restriction).
Thus we see how the neoliberal utopia tends to embody itself in the reality of a kind of infernal machine, whose necessity imposes
itself even upon the rulers. Like the Marxism of an earlier time, with which, in this regard, it has much in common, this utopia
evokes powerful belief - the free trade faith - not only among those who live off it, such as financiers, the owners and managers
of large corporations, etc., but also among those, such as high-level government officials and politicians, who derive their justification
for existing from it. For they sanctify the power of markets in the name of economic efficiency, which requires the elimination of
administrative or political barriers capable of inconveniencing the owners of capital in their individual quest for the maximisation
of individual profit, which has been turned into a model of rationality. They want independent central banks. And they preach the
subordination of nation-states to the requirements of economic freedom for the masters of the economy, with the suppression of any
regulation of any market, beginning with the labour market, the prohibition of deficits and inflation, the general privatisation
of public services, and the reduction of public and social expenses.
Economists may not necessarily share the economic and social interests of the true believers and may have a variety of individual
psychic states regarding the economic and social effects of the utopia which they cloak with mathematical reason. Nevertheless, they
have enough specific interests in the field of economic science to contribute decisively to the production and reproduction of belief
in the neoliberal utopia. Separated from the realities of the economic and social world by their existence and above all by their
intellectual formation, which is most frequently purely abstract, bookish, and theoretical, they are particularly inclined to confuse
the things of logic with the logic of things.
These economists trust models that they almost never have occasion to submit to the test of experimental verification and are
led to look down upon the results of the other historical sciences, in which they do not recognise the purity and crystalline transparency
of their mathematical games, whose true necessity and profound complexity they are often incapable of understanding. They participate
and collaborate in a formidable economic and social change. Even if some of its consequences horrify them (they can join the socialist
party and give learned counsel to its representatives in the power structure), it cannot displease them because, at the risk of a
few failures, imputable to what they sometimes call "speculative bubbles", it tends to give reality to the ultra-logical utopia (ultra-logical
like certain forms of insanity) to which they consecrate their lives.
And yet the world is there, with the immediately visible effects of the implementation of the great neoliberal utopia: not only
the poverty of an increasingly large segment of the most economically advanced societies, the extraordinary growth in income differences,
the progressive disappearance of autonomous universes of cultural production, such as film, publishing, etc. through the intrusive
imposition of commercial values, but also and above all two major trends. First is the destruction of all the collective institutions
capable of counteracting the effects of the infernal machine, primarily those of the state, repository of all of the universal values
associated with the idea of the public realm . Second is the imposition everywhere, in the upper spheres of the economy and
the state as at the heart of corporations, of that sort of moral Darwinism that, with the cult of the winner, schooled in higher
mathematics and bungee jumping, institutes the struggle of all against all and cynicism as the norm of all action and behaviour.
Can it be expected that the extraordinary mass of suffering produced by this sort of political-economic regime will one day serve
as the starting point of a movement capable of stopping the race to the abyss? Indeed, we are faced here with an extraordinary paradox.
The obstacles encountered on the way to realising the new order of the lone, but free individual are held today to be imputable to
rigidities and vestiges. All direct and conscious intervention of whatever kind, at least when it comes from the state, is discredited
in advance and thus condemned to efface itself for the benefit of a pure and anonymous mechanism, the market, whose nature as a site
where interests are exercised is forgotten. But in reality, what keeps the social order from dissolving into chaos, despite the growing
volume of the endangered population, is the continuity or survival of those very institutions and representatives of the old order
that is in the process of being dismantled, and all the work of all of the categories of social workers, as well as all the forms
of social solidarity, familial or otherwise.
The transition to "liberalism" takes place in an imperceptible manner, like continental drift, thus hiding its effects from view.
Its most terrible consequences are those of the long term. These effects themselves are concealed, paradoxically, by the resistance
to which this transition is currently giving rise among those who defend the old order by drawing on the resources it contained,
on old solidarities, on reserves of social capital that protect an entire portion of the present social order from falling into anomie.
This social capital is fated to wither away - although not in the short run - if it is not renewed and reproduced.
But these same forces of "conservation", which it is too easy to treat as conservative, are also, from another point of view,
forces of resistance to the establishment of the new order and can become subversive forces. If there is still cause for some
hope, it is that forces still exist, both in state institutions and in the orientations of social actors (notably individuals and
groups most attached to these institutions, those with a tradition of civil and public service) that, under the appearance of simply
defending an order that has disappeared and its corresponding "privileges" (which is what they will immediately be accused of), will
be able to resist the challenge only by working to invent and construct a new social order. One that will not have as its only law
the pursuit of egoistic interests and the individual passion for profit and that will make room for collectives oriented toward the
rational pursuit of ends collectively arrived at and collectively ratified .
How could we not make a special place among these collectives, associations, unions, and parties for the state: the nation-state,
or better yet the supranational state - a European state on the way toward a world state - capable of effectively controlling and
taxing the profits earned in the financial markets and, above of all, of counteracting the destructive impact that the latter have
on the labour market. This could be done with the aid of labour unions by organising the elaboration and defence of the public
interest . Like it or not, the public interest will never emerge, even at the cost of a few mathematical errors, from the vision
of accountants (in an earlier period one would have said of "shopkeepers") that the new belief system presents as the supreme form
of human accomplishment.
Pierre Bourdieu. Professor at the Collčge de France Translated by Jeremy J. Shapiro
( 1 ) Auguste Walras (1800-66), French economist,
author of De la nature de la richesse et de l'origine de la valeur ("On the Nature of Wealth and on the Origin of Value")(1848).
He was one of the first to attempt to apply mathematics to economic inquiry.
( 2 ) Erving Goffman. 1961. Asylums: Essays on
the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates . New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
( 3 ) See the two journal issues devoted to "Nouvelles
formes de domination dans le travail" ("New forms of domination in work"), Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales , nos.
114, September 1996, and 115, December 1996, especially the introduction by Gabrielle Balazs and Michel Pialoux, "Crise du travail
et crise du politique" & Work crisis and political crisis, no. 114: p.3-4.
Spending cuts reduce demand in the economy, for every dollar spend by the govt at the lowest
levels (welfare and essential services) around five to seven dollars of extra economic
activity is generated.
This sustains demand in the economy, and despite what Scott Morrison thinks, demand is
actually the thing that drives investment. Investment will not be made by businesses if there
is no demand, no matter how low the tax on profits is.
If you continually cut govt spending you will dampen down economic activity and
demand.
If you give tax breaks on profit to those who with a low propensity to spend locally (ie
foreign investors and super wealthy) and then impose Austerity to "balance the books" then
you will do a few things:
Profits in the short term will increase as there is a greater intensive to declare profits
as the tax is lower;
The increased profit will be more than likely achieved by reducing investment and and not
giving wage rises. Both are costs deducted before profit is calculated;
Investment in productive businesses will stall as demand falls as austerity measures kick
in;
Investments in speculative / safe haven investments will increase (shares, Property,
artworks etc); This will drive up speculative house prices and price out many ordinary
people.
Wages will stagnate and start to fall in real terms; Demand will stagnate and fall.
Businesses will cut back on investment and wages.
Inequality will worsen; and
Social discontent rise.
The cut taxes and impose austerity mantra is the fatuous economic and social thinking we
have come to expect from from the neo-cons.
IT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER
It never was going to work long terms. Only the massive con job by the media and
politicians made it seem even plausible.
If you want evidence of a con job by politicians you need look no further than the
assumption made that "all government spending is worthless" made by scot Morrison and co.
Even with this ridiculous assumption he was only able to get even one of five scenarios to
give a 0.5% boost to GDP in ten years time.
If he actually subtracted any negative effect of cutting govt spending, even without any
multiplier effect, then there was no scenario where the tax cuts made any sort of economic
sense.
And of course the MSM which is owned by the super wealth elite, will only continue to put
out pro neo-cons propaganda and ruthlessly degenerate any opposition viewpoint.
This is actually ironic as capitalism actually works best for all, including by the way
the super wealthy, when governments continually redistribute wealth downwards.
Economic well-being is something that thrives very well with social well-being.
Capitalism will fail catastrophically if governments continue to redistribute wealth
upwards.
Social dislocation is the probable outcome of the current ideological trajectory.
'Trickle down effect' - the favourite buzzword of neoliberal supporters. I'd like to see
trickle down effect tried at the local pub on the taps by the local mp. Imagine what would
happen. Definitely doesn't pass the pub test.
I still had some things I didn't talk about in Sunday's Trump Derangement
International , about how the European press have found out that they, like the US MSM, can
get lots of viewers and readers simply by publishing negative stories about Donald Trump. The
US president is an attention magnet, as long as you only write things about him designed to
make him look bad.
The Guardian is only too happy to comply. They ran a whole series of articles on Sunday to
do juts that: try to make Trump look bad. Note that the Guardian editorial team that okayed the
articles is the same as the one that allowed
the fake Assange/Manafort one , so their credibility is already shot to pieces. It's the
magic triangle of today's media profits: spout non-stop allegations against Russia, Trump and
Julian Assange, and link them when and where you can. It doesn't matter if what you say is true
or not.
Anyway, all the following is from the Guardian, all on December 23. First off, Adam Gabbatt
in New York, who has painstakingly researched how Trump's businesses, like Trump Tower and the
Trump store, don't appear to have sufficiently (as per him) switched from Happy Holidays to
Merry Christmas. Sherlock Holmes would have been proud. A smash hit there Adam, bring out the
handcuffs.
During Donald Trump's presidential campaign he talked often about his determination to win
one particular war. A war that had been raging for years, he said. Specifically: the war on
Christmas. But despite Trump's repeated claims that "people are saying Merry Christmas again"
instead of the more inclusive "happy holidays", there are several places where the Christmas
greeting is absent: Trump's own businesses.
The Trump Store, for example. Instead of a Christmas gift guide – which surely would
be more in keeping with the president's stated desire for the phrase to be used – the
store offers a holiday gift guide. "Shop our Holiday Gift Guide and find the perfect present
for the enthusiast on your list," the online store urges. "Carefully curated to celebrate the
most wonderful time of year with truly unique gifts found only at Trump Store. Add a bow on
top with our custom gift wrapping. Happy Holiday's!"
The use of the phrase "Happy Holiday's" [sic] in Trump marketing would seem particularly
egregious. The long-standing "War-on-Christmas" complaint from the political right is that
stores use the phrase "Happy Holidays", rather than specifically mentioning the Christian
celebration. It is offered as both an example of political correctness gone mad, and as an
effort to erase Christianity from the US.
It's just, I think that if Trump had personally interfered to make sure there were Merry
Christmas messages all around, you would have remarked that as president, he's not allowed to
be personally involved in his businesses. But yeah, you know, just to keep the negativity
going, it works, no matter how fluffy and hollow.
Second, still on December 23, is Tom McCarthy for the Guardian in New York, who talks about
Robert Mueller's phenomenal successes. Mueller charged 34 people so far. In a case that
involves "this complexity which has international implications, aspects relying on the
intelligence community, complicated cyber components". It really says that.
And yes, that's how many people view this. What do they care that Mueller's original mandate
was to prove collusion between the Trump campaign and 'Russians', and that he has not proven
any collusion at all so far, not even with 34 people charged? What do they care? It looks like
Trump is guilty of something, anything, after all, and that's all the circus wants.
One measure of special counsel Robert Mueller's prosecutorial success in 2018 is the list
of former top Donald Trump aides brought to justice: Michael Cohen pleaded guilty, a jury
convicted Paul Manafort, a judge berated Michael Flynn. Another measure is the tally of new
defendants that Mueller's team charged (34), the number of new guilty pleas he netted (five)
and the amount of money he clawed back through tax fraud cases ($48m).
Yet another measure might judge Mueller's pace compared with previous independent
prosecutors. "I would refer to it as a lightning pace," said Barb McQuade, a University of
Michigan law professor and former US attorney. "In a case of this complexity which has
international implications, aspects relying on the intelligence community, complicated cyber
components – to indict that many people that quickly is really impressive work."
But there's perhaps a more powerful way to measure Mueller's progress in his investigation
into Russian interference in the 2016 US election and links between Moscow and the Trump
campaign; that's by noticing how the targets of his investigation have changed their postures
over the course of 2018, from defiance to docility – or in the case of Trump himself,
from defiance to extreme, hyperventilating defiance.
In reality, you would be at least as correct if you would claim that Robert Mueller's
investigation has been an abject failure. Not one iota of collusion has been proven after 20
months and $20 million in funds have been used. And any serious investigation of Washington's
culture of fixers and lobbyists would land at least 34 people who have committed acts that
border on or over illegality. And in a matter of weeks, for a few hundred bucks.
Third, still on December 23, is Julian Borger in Washington, who's been elected to convey
the image of chaos. Trump Unleashed, says our modern day Shakespeare. With Jim Mad Dog Mattis
characterized as ".. the last independently minded, globally respected, major figure left in
the administration".. . Again, it really says that.
Because woe the man who tries to bring US troops home, or even promises to do so a few days
before Christmas. For pulling out America's finest, Donald Trump is being portrayed as
something eerily close to the antichrist. That truly is the world on its head. Bringing troops
home to their families equals chaos.
Look, guys, if Trump has been guilty of criminal behavior, the US justice system should be
able to find that out and convict him for it. But that's not what this is about anymore. A
million articles have been written, like these ones in the Guardian, with the sole intention,
evidence being scarce to non-existent, of smearing him to the extent that people see every
subsequent article in the light of a man having previously been smeared.
The US stumbled into the holiday season with a sense of unravelling, as a large chunk of
the federal government ground to a halt, the stock market crashed and the last independently
minded, globally respected, major figure left in the administration announced he could no
longer work with the president. The defense secretary, James Mattis, handed in his
resignation on Thursday, over Donald Trump's abrupt decision to pull US troops out of
Syria.
On Saturday another senior official joined the White House exodus. Brett McGurk, the
special envoy for the global coalition to defeat Isis and the US official closest to
America's Kurdish allies in the region, was reported to have handed in his resignation on
Friday. That night, senators flew back to Washington from as far away as Hawaii for emergency
talks aimed at finding a compromise on Trump's demand for nearly $6bn for a wall on the
southern border, a campaign promise which has become an obsession.
Now look at the next headline, December 23, Graeme Wearden, Guardian, and ask yourself if
it's really Trump saying he doesn't agree with the rate hikes that fuels the fears, or whether
it's the hikes themselves. And also ask yourself: when Trump and Mnuchin both deny reports of
Trump firing Powell, why do journalists keep saying the opposite? Because they want to fuel
some fears?
From where I'm sitting, it looks perfectly logical that Trump says he doesn't think Powell's
decisions are good for the US economy. And it doesn't matter which one of the two turns out to
be right: Trump isn't the only person who disagrees with the Fed hikes.
The main suspect for 2019 market turmoil is the inevitable fallout from the Fed's QE under
Bernanke and Yellen. And there is something to be said for Powell trying to normalize rates,
but there's no doubt that may hasten, if not cause, turmoil. Blaming it on Trump not agreeing
with Jay Powell is pretty much as left field as it gets.
Over the weekend, a flurry of reports claimed Donald Trump had discussed the possibility
of firing the Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell. Such an unprecedented move would
trigger further instability in the markets, which have already had their worst year since the
2008 crisis. US officials scrambled to deny Trump had suggested ousting Powell, who was
appointed by the president barely a year ago.
The Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, tweeted that he had spoken to the president, who
insisted he "never suggested firing" Powell, and did not believe he had the right to do this
. However, Trump also declared – via Mnuchin – that he "totally disagrees" with
the Fed's "absolutely terrible" policy of raising interest rates and unwinding its
bond-buying stimulus programme, piling further pressure on the US's independent central
bank.
And now, in the only article in the Guardian series that's December 24, not 23, by Victoria
Bekiempis and agencies, the plunging numbers in the stock markets are Trump's fault, too.
Top Democrats have accused Donald Trump of "plunging the country into chaos" as top
officials met to discuss a growing rout in stock markets caused in part by the president's
persistent attacks on the Federal Reserve and a government shutdown. "It's Christmas Eve and
President Trump is plunging the country into chaos," the two top Democrats in Congress, House
speaker nominee Nancy Pelosi and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, wrote in a joint
statement on Monday. "The stock market is tanking and the president is waging a personal war
on the Federal Reserve – after he just fired the Secretary of Defense."
Trump criticized the Federal Reserve on Monday, describing it as the "only problem" for
the US economy, even as top officials convened the "plunge protection team" forged after the
1987 crash to discuss the growing rout in stock markets. The crisis call on Monday between US
financial regulators and the US treasury department failed to assure markets, and stocks fell
again amid concern about slowing economic growth, the continuing government shutdown, and
reports that Trump had discussed firing Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell.
The last one is from one Jonathan Jones, again December 23, again for the Guardian. And it
takes the top award in the narrative building contest.
Again, the Guardian editorial team that okayed this article is still the same as the one
that allowed the fake Assange/Manafort one, an editorial team that sees no problem in making
things up in order to smear people. To portray Trump, Assange and anyone who's had the
misfortune of being born in Russia as suspicious if not outright criminal.
But look at what Jones has to say, and what Guardian editor-in-chief Kathy Viner and her ilk
allowed and pressured him to say. He wants to have a say in how Trump should dress (seasonal
knitwear), he evokes the image of Nazi architect Albert Speer for no reason at all, and then
it's a matter of mere inches until you arrive at Trump as a king, an emperor, an inner
tyrant.
"He's in a tuxedo!", Like that's a bad thing for Christmas. "She's in white!". Oh dear, call
the pope. If both Trumps would have put on Christmas sweaters in front of a fire, the writer
would have found something negative in that.
The absence of intimacy in the Trumps' official Christmas portrait freezes the heart. Can
it be that hard to create a cosy image of the presidential couple, perhaps in front of a
roaring hearth, maybe in seasonal knitwear? Or is this quasi-dictatorial image exactly what
the president wants to project? Look on my Christmas trees, ye mighty, and despair! If so, it
fuels suspicions that it is only the checks and balances of a 230-year-old constitution that
are keeping America from the darkest of political fates. You couldn't create a creepier
Yuletide scene if you tried. Multiple Christmas trees are currently a status symbol for the
wealthy, but this picture shows the risks.
Instead of a homely symbol of midwinter cheer, these disciplined arboreal ranks with their
uniform decorations are arrayed like massed soldiers or colossal columns designed by Albert
Speer. The setting is the Cross Hall in the White House and, while the incumbent president
cannot be held responsible for its architecture, why heighten its severity with such rigid,
heartless seasonal trappings? Everything here communicates cold, empty magnificence. Tree
lights that are as frigid as icicles are mirrored in a cold polished floor. Equally frosty
illuminations are projected on the ceiling. Instead of twinkling fairy magic, this lifeless
lighting creates a sterile, inhuman atmosphere.
You can't imagine kids playing among these trees or any conceivable fun being had by
anyone. It suggests the micromanaged, corporate Christmas of a Citizen Kane who has long
since lost touch with the ordinary, warm pleasures of real life. In the centre of this
disturbing piece of conceptual art stand Donald and Melania Trump. He's in a tuxedo, she's
wearing white – and not a woolly hat in sight. Their formal smartness adds to the
emotional numbness of the scene. Trump's shark-like grin has nothing generous or friendly
about it. He seems to want to show off his beautiful wife and his fantastic home rather than
any of the cuddly holiday spirit a conventional politician might strive to share at this
time.
It begs a question: how can a man who so glaringly lacks anything like a common touch be
such a successful "populist"? What can a midwestern voter find in this image to connect with?
Perhaps that's the point. After more than two centuries of democracy, Trump is offering the
US people a king, or emperor. In this picture, he gives full vent to his inner tyrant. If
this portrait contains any truth about the state of America and the world, may Santa help us
all.
I realize that you may be tired of the whole story. I realize you may have been caught in
the anti-Trump narrative. And I am by no means a Trump fan. But I will keep on dragging you
back to this. Because the discussion should not be based on a handful of media moguls not
liking Trump. It should not be based on innuendo and smear. If Trump is to be convicted, it
must be on evidence.
And there is no such evidence. Robert Mueller has charged 34 people, but none with what his
mandate was based on, none with Russia collusion. This means that the American political
system, and democracy itself, is under severe threat by the very media that are supposed to be
its gate keepers.
None of this is about Trump, or about whether you like him or not, or even if he's a shady
character or not. Instead, it's about the influence the media have on how our opinions and
ideas about people and events are being shaped on a daily basis.
And once you acknowledge that your opinions of Trump, Putin et al, even without any proof of
a connection between them, are actively being molded by the press you expect to inform you
about the truth behind what goes on, you will have to acknowledge, too, that you are a captive
of forces that use your gullibility to make a profit off you.
If our media need to make up things all the time about who's guilty of what, because our
justice systems are incapable of that, then we have a problem so enormous we may not be able to
overcome it in our present settings.
Alternatively, if we trust our justice systems to deliver true justice, we don't need a
hundred articles a day to tell us how Trump or Putin are such terrible threats to our world.
Our judges will tell us, not our journalists or media who are only in it for a profit.
I can say: "let's start off 2019 trying to leave prejudice behind", and as much as that is
needed and you may agree with me, it's no use if you don't realize to what extent your views of
the world have been shaped by prejudice.
I see people reacting to the star writer at Der Spiegel who wrote a lot about Trump, being
exposed as a fraud. I also see people trying to defend Julian Assange from the Guardian article
about his alleged meetings with Paul Manafort, that was an obvious big fat lie (the truth is
Manafort talked to Ecuador to help them 'sell' Assange to the US).
But reacting to the very obvious stuff is not enough . The echo chamber distorts the truth
about Trump every single day, and at least six times on Sunda y, as this essay of mine shows.
It's just that after two years of this going on 24/7, it is perceived as the normal.
Everyone makes money dumping on the Donald, it's a proven success formula, so why would the
Guardian and Der Spiegel stay behind? They'd only hurt their own bottom line.
It has nothing to do with journalism, though, or news. It's smear and dirt, the business
model of the National Enquirer. That's how far our once truthful media have fallen.
All these journalists are influenced and manipulated by 'Australian-American Leadership
Dialogue', 'Atlantikbrücke', Open Society Foundation money etc. Wars boost the NYSE
because many weapons manufacturers are listed there.
If the journalists weren't manipulated all 2018 compilations would not have omitted the
World Cup in Russia.
"... Her targets range from pharmaceutical companies, which uphold a heartless version of market rationality, to internet companies with monopoly power such as Google and Facebook. Her most compelling example, however, is the workings of the financial sector, and its Friedman-style obsession with "shareholder value maximization," which has infected the corporate sector as a whole. ..."
"... Reading Mazzucato's book, it is hard not to wonder just how "neoliberal" ideas and values, which uphold the rationality of the market and exclude notions of the common good, came to shape the conduct of individuals and institutions. ..."
"... In these narratives, neoliberalism appears indistinguishable from laissez-faire. In " Globalists : The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism," Quinn Slobodian briskly overturns this commonplace view. Neoliberals, he argues, are people who believe that "the market does not and cannot take care of itself," and indeed neoliberalism is a form of regulation -- one that insulates the markets from vagaries of mass democracy and economic nationalism. ..."
Ideas once dismissed as the ravings of the loony left are breaking into the mainstream of economic and intellectual debate. We live
in an age of political earthquakes: That much, at least, seemed clear from newspaper headlines nearly every day of 2018. But intellectual
tectonic plates were also shifting throughout the year, with ideas once dismissed as the ravings of the loony left breaking into
the mainstream.
A Western consensus quickly formed after the collapse of communist regimes in 1989. It was widely believed by newspaper editorialists
as well as politicians and businessmen that there was no alternative to free markets, which alone could create prosperity.
The government's traditional attempts to regulate corporations and banks and redistribute wealth through taxes were deemed a problem.
As the economist Milton Friedman
put it , "The
world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests."
Neither individuals nor companies needed to worry much about inequality or social justice. In Friedman's influential view, "There
is one and only one social responsibility of business -- to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits."
Political fiascos in the West, following its largest financial crisis -- events accompanied by the emergence of China, a Communist-run
nation-state, as a major economic power, as well as an unfolding environmental calamity -- have utterly devastated these post-1989
assumptions about free markets and the role of governments.
Confessions to this effect come routinely from disenchanted believers. Take, for instance, Olivier Blanchard, former chief economist
of the International Monetary Fund, who recently posed the once-blasphemous question: "What comes after capitalism?"
Blanchard was commenting on the recent demonstrations in France against President Emmanuel Macron. He
rightly described a global impasse: "Given
the political constraints on redistribution and the constraints from capital mobility, we may just not be able to alleviate inequality
and insecurity enough to prevent populism and revolutions."
Nor, for that matter, can we work towards a greener economy. In any case, Blanchard's admission confirms that we inhabit, intellectually
and culturally, a radical new reality -- one in which "neoliberalism," a word previously confined to academic seminars, has entered
rap lyrics , and stalwarts of the establishment
sound like activists of Occupy Wall Street.
Thus, Martin Wolf, respected columnist for the Financial Times, recently
concluded , if "reluctantly," that
"capitalism is substantially broken." This year, many books with titles such as "The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death
of Competition" and "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" blamed an unjust economic system and its beneficiaries
for the rise of demagogues.
It is becoming clear that the perennial conflict between democracy, which promises equality, and capitalism, which generates inequality,
has been aggravated by a systemic neglect of some fundamental issues.
In " The Value of
Everything : Making and Taking in the Global Economy," Mariana Mazzucato bracingly focuses our attention on them. Mazzucato
has previously written about the innovative role of governments in the modern economy. In her new book, she asks us to distinguish
between people who create value and those who merely extract it, often destroying it in the process.
Her targets range from pharmaceutical companies, which uphold a heartless version of market rationality, to internet companies
with monopoly power such as Google and Facebook. Her most compelling example, however, is the workings of the financial sector, and
its Friedman-style obsession with "shareholder value maximization," which has infected the corporate sector as a whole.
Reading Mazzucato's book, it is hard not to wonder just how "neoliberal" ideas and values, which uphold the rationality of the
market and exclude notions of the common good, came to shape the conduct of individuals and institutions.
In the conventional account of neoliberalism, Friedman looms large, along with his disciple Ronald Reagan, and Britain's Margaret
Thatcher. Much has been written about how the IMF's structural adjustment programs in Asia and Africa, and "shock-therapy" for post-Communist
states, entrenched orthodoxies about deregulation and privatization.
In these narratives, neoliberalism appears indistinguishable from laissez-faire. In "
Globalists : The
End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism," Quinn Slobodian briskly overturns this commonplace view. Neoliberals, he argues, are
people who believe that "the market does not and cannot take care of itself," and indeed neoliberalism is a form of regulation --
one that insulates the markets from vagaries of mass democracy and economic nationalism.
Beginning with the breakup of the Hapsburg Empire, Slobodian's lucidly written intellectual history traces the ideas of a group
of Western thinkers who sought to create, against a backdrop of anarchy, globally applicable economic rules.
Their attempt, it turns out, succeeded all too well in our own time. We stand in the ruins of their project, confronting political,
economic and environmental crises of unprecedented scale and size.
It is imperative to chart our way out of them, steering clear of the diversions offered by political demagogues. One can only
hope that the new year will bring more intellectual heresies of the kind Mazzucato's and Slobodian's books embody. We need them urgently
to figure out what comes after neoliberalism.
"... The political strategy behind these contradictions is simple: it is difficult to criticise government spending on health and education, or popular regulations like consumer protection and limits on executive pay. So why not just criticise all government spending and all ..."
After the mining boom and decades of economic growth, how can Australia be broke?
Gina Rinehart was becoming the world's richest woman those on the minimum wage were falling further and
further behind
Australia just experienced one of the biggest mining booms in
world history. But even at the peak of that boom, there was no talk of the wonderful opportunity we finally had to invest in world-class
mental health or domestic violence crisis services.
Nor was there much talk from either major party about how the wealth of the
mining boom gave us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to invest in remote Indigenous communities. Nope, the peak of the mining boom
was not the time to help those who had missed out in decades past, but the Howard government thought it was a great time to introduce
permanent tax cuts for high-income earners. These, of course, are the tax cuts that caused the budget deficits we have today.
Millions of tonnes of explosives were used during the mining boom to build more than 100 new mines, but it wasn't just prime farmland
that was blasted away in the boom, it was access to the middle class. At the same time that Gina Rinehart was becoming the world's
richest woman on the back of rising iron ore prices, those on the minimum wage were falling further and further behind their fellow
Australians.
Like Joe Hockey, Rinehart saw the problem of inequality as having more to do with the character of the poor than
with the rules of the game: "If you're jealous of those with more money, don't just sit there and complain. Do something
to make more money yourself – spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising, and more time working."
Privatisation is deeply unpopular with voters. Here's how to end it | John Quiggin
Australia isn't poor; it is rich beyond the imagining of anyone living in the 1970s or 80s. But so much of that
new wealth has been vacuumed up by a few, and so little of that new wealth has been paid in tax, that the public has
been convinced that ours is a country struggling to pay its bills.
Convincing Australians that our nation is poor and that our governments "can't afford" to provide the level of services they provided
in the past has not just helped to lower our expectations of our public services and infrastructure, it has helped to lower our expectations
of democracy itself. A public school in Sydney has had to ban kids from running in the playground because it was so overcrowded.
Trains have become so crowded at peak hours that many people, especially the frail and the disabled, are reluctant to use them. And
those who have lost their jobs now wait for hours on the phone when they reach out to Centrelink for help.
Although people with low expectations are easier to con, fomenting cynicism about democracy comes at a long-term cost. Indeed,
as the current crop of politicians is beginning to discover, people with low expectations feel they have nothing to lose.
As more and more people live with the poverty and job insecurity that flow directly from neoliberal welfare and industrial relations
policies, the scare campaigns run so successfully by the likes of the Business Council of Australia have lost their sting. Scary
stories about the economy become like car alarms: once they attracted attention, but now they simply annoy those forced to listen.
'If governments can't make a difference and all politicians are corrupt, why not vote for outsiders?
After decades of hearing conservative politicians say that government is the problem, a growing number of conservative
voters no longer care which major party forms government. If governments can't make a difference and all politicians
are corrupt, why not vote for outsiders like Jacqui Lambie or Clive Palmer? There is perhaps no clearer evidence of
the short-termism of the Liberal and National parties today than their willingness to fan the flames of anti-politician
rhetoric without considering that it is their own voters who are most likely to heed the message.
Back when he was leading the campaign against Australia becoming a republic, Tony Abbott famously argued that you couldn't trust
politicians to choose our head of state. And more recently, in campaigning against marriage equality, Minister Matt Canavan was featured
in a television advertisement laughing at the thought that we could trust politicians.
Neoliberalism: the idea that swallowed the world
Convincing Australians that the country was broke also helped convince us that we have no choice but to sell the
family silver. But of course we have a choice. Just as there is no right answer as to whether it's better to rent
a home or buy one, there is no right answer to whether it's better for governments to own the electricity supply,
the postal service or the water supply, or none of these things.
Different governments in different countries make different decisions at different points in time. While much of neoliberalism's
rhetorical power comes from the assertion that "there is no alternative," the simple fact is that the world is full of alternatives.
Indeed, even the so-called free marketeers in Australia can see alternatives.
Consider stadiums, for example. The NSW Liberal government has a long track record of being pro-privatisation. It has sold off
billions of dollars' worth of electricity, water and health infrastructure. But when it comes to football stadiums, it has no ideological
problem with public ownership, nor any fiscal inhibition about spending billions of taxpayers' dollars.
In 2016 the NSW Liberal government spent $220m buying back ANZ Stadium, built in the 1990s with taxpayer funds at a cost of $690m
and subsequently sold to Stadium Australia Group. Having bought back the stadium, the NSW government plans to spend hundreds of millions
of dollars refurbishing it. That same money could build a lot of school science labs, domestic violence crisis centres or skate parks
for the bored kids the shopping malls don't want scratching up their marble stairs. For the past 30 years, Australians have been
told that we can't afford high-quality public services, that public ownership of assets is inefficient, and that the pursuit of free
markets through deregulation would create wealth and prosperity for all. But none of this is true.
While the policy agenda
of neoliberalism has never been broadly applied in Australia, for 30 years the language
of neoliberalism has been applied to everything from environmental protection to care of the disabled. The result of the partial
application of policy and the broad application of language is not just a yawning gap between those with the greatest wealth and
those with the greatest need, but a country that is now riven by demographic, geographic and racial divides.
Cutting the budget deficit is very important – except when it isn't
Australian politics
isn't about ideology, it's about interests. The clearest proof of that claim is that neoliberal ideas such
as deregulation were never aimed at powerful interest groups like the pharmacists or the gambling industry. And savage spending cuts
were never aimed at subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry or private health insurers.
Tony Abbott, who claimed to have a philosophical problem with carbon taxing, once proposed a 20% increase in the tobacco excise
Just as conservative Christian theology provides an excuse for sexism and homophobia, neoliberal language allows
powerful groups to package their personal preferences as national interests – systematically cutting spending on their
enemies and giving money to their friends. Here are some examples:
John Howard said he was obsessed with deregulating the labour market, but introduced 762 pages of labour-market regulation,
which he entitled WorkChoices. He didn't deregulate the labour market; he re-regulated it in his preferred form. He knew that
government decisions matter. Similarly, the Abbott government declared it was waging a war on red tape, yet the Turnbull government
is determined to pass new laws restricting unions and NGOs.
If there is one thing that neoliberals really seem to believe, it is that reducing the budget deficit is very, very important.
Except when it isn't. The political and business leaders who said we needed to slash welfare spending because we had a "budget
emergency" are currently advocating a $65bn tax cut for business – even though the deficit is bigger now than it was at the
time of the alleged emergency.
The Productivity Commission and state treasuries spent years advocating the deregulation and privatisation of the electricity
industry – and succeeded in creating a "free market" system governed by 5,000 pages of electricity market rules. Electricity
is too dangerous and too important to be deregulated, and those pushing for deregulation always knew that. They didn't want
a free market; they simply wanted a market, one in which the government played a smaller role and the private sector made large
profits selling an essential service for much higher prices than the government ever charged.
The NSW government requires NGOs and disability service providers to compete with each other but, when it sold Port Botany
and the Port of Newcastle, it structured the sales to ensure that Newcastle could not compete with Port Botany for the landing
of the millions of containers that arrive by ship each year. While "competition policy" is applied to the vulnerable, those
buying billion-dollar assets are protected from those same forces of competition.
To be clear, there has been no obsession among the political elite with the neoliberal goals of reducing government spending,
regulation or tax collection in Australia over the past three decades. None. They didn't mean a word of it. While there may have
been economists, commentators and even business leaders who sincerely believed in those goals, it is clear from their actions, as
distinct from their words, that John Howard, Tony Abbott and even the former head of the Business Council of Australia Tony Shepherd,
the man tasked with running Abbott's National Commission of Audit, had no principled objection to spending large amounts of public
money on things they liked spending large amounts of public money on. Indeed, in his speakers' agency profile, Tony Shepherd brags
about his ability to get public money for private ventures:
It is no mean feat to convince governments to support private sector proposals, but as former prime minister, the honourable
Paul Keating, said, "Tony managed to get more money out of my government than any other person I can recall."
Hundreds of new pages of regulation now govern the conduct of charities. Billions of taxpayers' dollars have been spent by "small
government" politicians on everything from television ads for innovation to subsidies for marriage counselling. And Tony Abbott,
who claimed to have a philosophical problem with carbon taxing, once proposed a 20% increase in the tobacco excise.
The political strategy behind these contradictions is simple: it is difficult to criticise government spending on health and education,
or popular regulations like consumer protection and limits on executive pay. So why not just criticise all government spending and
all
red tape in general? Once you have convinced the public that all government spending is inefficient, you can set about
cutting spending on your enemies and retaining it for your friends. And once you convince people that all regulation is bad, you
can set about removing consumer protections while retaining the laws that protect the TV industry, the gambling industry, the pharmaceutical
industry and all your other friends.
Cover of Dead Right by Richard Denniss, Quarterly Essay.
When powerful groups want subsidies, we are told they will create jobs. When powerless groups want better funding
for domestic violence shelters or after-school reading groups, they are told of the need to reduce the budget deficit.
When powerful groups demand new regulations, we are told it will provide business with certainty, but when powerless
groups demand new regulations, they are told it will create sovereign risk.
Ideology has a bad name these days, but it simply means a "system of ideas and ideals." By that definition, it is possible to
think of neoliberalism as an ideology focused on the idea that market forces are superior to government decision-making. But while
large segments of Australian politics and business have draped themselves, and their policy preferences, in the cloak of neoliberal
ideas and ideals, in reality to call them "ideologues" is to flatter them. They lack the consistency and strength of principle to
warrant the title.
Tue 16 Oct 2018
13.00 EDT
Last modified on Tue 16 Oct 2018
19.11 EDT
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
This article is over
2 months old
Australian economic growth has been a 'standout' says Bernie Fraser, but too many have missed the benefits.
Photograph: Tracey Nearmy/EPA
Neoliberalism has caused "misery and social polarisation" yet remains in vogue with the Coalition government,
according to the economist Bernie Fraser.
The former Treasury secretary and Reserve Bank governor has made the
comments in a presentation circulated to participants of the Australia Institute's revenue summit to be held in
Canberra on Wednesday.
Michael Keating, a former secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, will also use the summit
to raise doubts about the Morrison government's budget forecasts.
Australia's housing boom is not heading for a soft landing. How did we get
here? | Greg Jericho
Read more
In the background notes for Fraser's speech, seen by Guardian Australia, he says that Australia's 27 consecutive
years of economic growth is a "standout", "Winx-like" performance.
But the record deserves only "qualified applause" because "too many Australians remain unemployed, under-employed,
underskilled, underpaid and lack job security".
Fraser warns that society has become "less fair, less compassionate and more divided" and "more devoid of trust in
almost every field of human activity" in the past 20 years.
"As a disinterested player in climate change negotiations and a miserable foreign aid donor, we have slipped well
down the list of good global citizens."
Political ideologies appear to have contributed to inequality and disadvantage in Australia in that time, he
argues.
Fraser in large part blames "neoliberalism" and its influence on policymaking for the "disconnect between
Australia's impressive economic growth story and its failure on so many markers to show progress towards a better,
fairer society".
"Favouring the market system ahead of the state system, and individual interests ahead of community interests, can
lead to profoundly unfair social outcomes.
More than three million Australians living in poverty, Acoss report reveals
Read more
"Those unable to afford access to decent standards of housing, healthcare, and other essential services have to
settle for inferior arrangements, or go without."
Fraser says charitable organisations see the effects of "real poverty" that result in "misery, anxiety and loss of
self-esteem of mothers unable to put food on the table for their kids, of old and young homeless people, and the
victims of domestic violence and drug overdoses".
Fraser summarises the key thrusts of neoliberalism as "the pursuit of the lowest possible rates of income and most
other taxes and the maximum restraint on government interventions and spending programs".
Evidence in Australia and overseas shows the influence of neoliberalism on fiscal policy "and the misery and
social polarisation that has come with it", he says.
The global financial crisis "should have" marked a tipping point, when the "idealised view of financial markets
being self-regulating" was shattered. While Australia "avoided the worst traumas of the GFC" with prompt fiscal and
monetary policy responses, in Europe "taxes were increased and spending programs slashed", resulting in a further
five or six years of severe recession.
Fraser says that all political ideologies – taken to extremes – can be divisive and cause damage, including an
ideology "based on a state system".
But the former Reserve Bank governor focuses on neoliberalism because it "remains in vogue". The Morrison
government "continues to reaffirm its over-riding commitment to lower taxation, and to assert that this is the best
way to increase investment, jobs and economic growth" -
despite the lack of evidence to support the theory
.
Although Fraser recognises that politics never can or should be taken out of policymaking, he suggests the best
course is to "hammer away" at flaws of particular approaches.
In a separate presentation Keating – who headed PM&C from 1991 to 1996 – warns the government's promise to cap
expenditure while simultaneously cutting taxes and returning the budget to surplus is based on overly optimistic
assumptions of growth in GDP, wages and productivity.
Why are stock markets falling and how far will they go?
Read more
According to Keating, the government must stop assuming there have been no structural changes in the relationship
between unemployment and the rate of wage increases.
He notes that predictions of a tightening labour market leading to higher wages are predicated on assumptions of
growth averaging 3% or as much as 3.5%.
He will also say a sustained return to past rates of economic growth will be impossible unless we can ensure a
reasonably equitable distribution of income, involving a faster rate of wage increases, especially for the low-paid.
I'm not the one who has a problem with neo-liberalism, it's provided for me more than
adequately. Having spent a lot of time living overseas, it's provided ALL Australians with a
far better deal than a few billion others.
If you are too naive to see this, then maybe you need to try an alternative for a while.
It's quite ok, i'll be waiting for when the alternative fails (they always do) and I can come
back and pick off the assets from the carcus of that little experiment for less than a cent
in the dollar.
The dog eat dog economy simply represents our nature, it's who we are, we thrive under
libertarianism.
Po-faced, Libertarian BOLLOCKS.
Privatisation is sucker-farming.
Milking the punters, like ants milk aphids.
Farming them, like bellbirds do with leaf-bugs.
And even THAT is only part of the equation.
The fondest goal, the one which gives the management class hard-ons ?
Privatisation de-unionises their workforces.
It is quite strange that the biggest supporters of neo-liberal economics with its belief that
giving money to the rich will solve all our problems call themselves 'Christians'.
I can't remember when Jesus preached trickle down. I don't remember the bit where Jesus
said to treat those seeking asylum and fleeing violence like they are the scum of the earth.
I don't remember when Jesus said the poor needed a good kick in the guts while they are down
to motivate them to work harder. I don't remember when Jesus said we should cut funds from
the sick to balance the budget. I don't remember Jesus saying that if you bear false witness
often enough then you will fool enough of the people enough to keep power so you can look
after your corporate buddy buddies.
In fact, almost all of the politicians in the Coalition who proclaim to be 'Christian'
must have their own secret bible because nothing I have heard from the New Testament
justifies their actions.
Me, I'm an atheist and I have more care, consideration, ethics and compassion than the
entire collection of right wing bible bashers sitting in parliament today.
Thanks for this. We need more of these articles pointing out the bullshit behind this story
that the Coalition has been feeding the gullible peasantry with for over 30 years, sneering,
smirking and sniggering as truckloads of public money goes to private corporations. The money
received from selling off public assets has been shoved into private businesses who then feel
very free to charge like bulls.
It's a shame so many folk still fall for this bullshit meaning that their own families, work
colleagues and community get shafted through diminishing public services.
They used to tell me I was building a dream
And so I followed the mob
When there was earth to plow or guns to bear
I was always there right on the job
They used to tell me I was building a dream
With peace and glory ahead
Why should I be standing in line
Just waiting for bread?
Once I built a railroad, I made it run
Made it race against time
Once I built a railroad, now it's done
Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once I built a tower up to the sun
Brick and rivet and lime
Once I built a tower, now it's done
Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once in khaki suits, gee we looked swell
Full of that yankee doodle de dum
Half a million boots went sloggin' through hell
And I was the kid with the drum
Say, don't you remember, they called me Al
It was Al all the time
Say, don't you remember, I'm your pal
Buddy, can you spare a dime?
'This is more or less the definition of increased productivity and it is what ultimately
leads to improved living standards for everyone'
Lazy, neoliberal, supply-side economic guff. Neoliberals undermine government and
democracy and then scavenge on the wreckage. When does 'ultimately' begin for 'everyone'?
Never.
'Private companies provide the same service with much less labour'
Firing people is the answer? What a hardened realist you are. Must be great to be so
certain in your neoliberal convictions. Are you really telling us that every privatisation
has been a success?
These pieces of infrastructure have been built through generations of work and wise
investment - they are not any one government's to sell. It's just easier for a corrupt,
rudderless, feckless neoliberal shill to sell it than it is for them to to run it.
Can't even begin to address the characteristic Libertarian slyness in all that.
But I'll try.
"What you call neoliberalism was a set of responses to the failure of socialism or as Tony
Blair said 'what matters is what works'."
Incorrect.
What I--what the world--calls "Neoliberalism', is the corpse of Classical economics,
resurrected post-WW2 by Friedman and Hayek's 'Mont Pelerin Society. '
Why was it buried ?
Because during the Great Depression, its dogmatic insistence on continued austerity and wage
cuts only made things worse.
After all, in an economic slump, whats the worst thing you can do ?
Deprive people of whatever little purchasing power they have.
So, goodbye Classical economics.
After which, govts SPENT their societies out of slump, putting people to work.
(O, the horror ! O, the heresy !)
The public works of that era include Germany's autobahns and the US New Deal projects,
including the Tennessee Valley system and similar in Western States.
( O the horror ! O the heresy !)
Friedman, Hayek and the gang looked at those and post-WW2 programs of public benefit, such as
the UK's NHS and shat themselves. Typical fear-driven conservatives, they were convinced such
programs represented the thin end of the wedge which MUST end in imposition of Soviet-style
conditions.
What utter paranoid crap.
Their resurrected corpse of Classical economics ?.
THAT is what is 'Neoliberalism'.
Whether or not I call it so is immaterial.
Then, this lofty bit of finger-wagging assertion;
"This process of economic evolution is necessarily imperfect and incomplete...."
Your Lordship's overview is appreciated...
"....but currently leaves you free to own a computer, read news on-line, communicate using
the internet (maybe using NBN?) and express your views freely. "
Sez who ?
You ?
Besides, the only one talking about that old bogey, "socialism" is you.
Because its a conveniently perjorative label, eh ?
Pretty infantile, though.
"Anybody who doesn't agree with EVERYTHING I say, must be a 'socialist.' And they can't
play with my toys."
PS 'Adam', why do LIbertarians always project a Superiority Complex ?
Why are the buggers always so PLEASED WITH THEMSELVES ?
Neoliberalism = Socialism for the Rich - Capitalism for the Poor.
Politics needs reform, plain & simple. Fed ICAC and Integrity Commission is a good
start but it's not enough. The rules have to change too. Major decisions like privatising
services or tax handouts to the rich, shouldn't by law be allowed to get through parliament
or the senate unless the claims being made to justify them are quantifiable &
demonstrated to be in the National Interest. Currently politicians have no obligation to do
either.
e.g. claiming that jobs will be created if Penalty rates are cut = there's no way to
quantify such a BS claim and Doug Cameron got them to admit that in Senate Estimates. Even so
they were allowed to lie through their teeth and impose it anyway with no requirement to
prove their BS claims. This corporate tax handout = once again they claim it will lead to
more wealth to average Australians and more jobs but it can't be quantified or guaranteed via
regulation so it's all bullshit. The rich will hoard the wealth & kick Australians in the
guts as usual. That's what they've always done and always will do. Privatisation of
electricity..what a crock of shit. They claimed it would create competition and drive down
prices. What's happened? The complete opposite but politicians KNOW they're not accountable
and therein 'lies' the problem. The shortsheeting of the original NBN, = yet another lie.
They've totally crippled Australia's ability to compete in a digital age and completely
screwed regional 2nd tier cities and towns in terms of growth. As far as the National
interest is concerned the shortsheeting of the NBN is the complete opposite. Even so they
were allowed to bastardise that too without any accountability whatsoever. Australians need
to start demanding political reform so these bastards are accountable to the people.
Neoliberalism is just the academic name for the political ideology of greed, corruption, self
interest, self entitlement, corporate welfare, inequality, user pays, and poverty is your
fault.
Do you see any contradiction between privatised electricity and socialised stadiums?
Neoliberalism explains it all. Corruption in politics means that only profitable assets
are privatised. Stadiums lose money, so are kept in private hands as corporate welfare for
the various billionaire team owners and TV networks.
I love Richard Denniss! What a brilliantly concise and yet well supported argument. Now we
just need someone who can say it in terms that will persuade unwilling voters to think
carefully about their vote. If they do think carefully they simply cannot return this
government to power, now that they're all revealed as nothing but crony capitalists.
I must admit that like many people I also thought neoliberalism was an ideology, but then
I couldn't understand why they were so inconsistent in their spending of 'tax-payers'
funds'.
From now on I'll be pointing out those inconsistencies with more confidence - armed with
Richard's incontrovertible points, and also by a closer reading of Canadian Kean Birch's
article:
[The term neoliberalism ] is used to refer to an economic system in which the
"free" market is extended to every part of our public and personal worlds.
And here's wikipedia's definition of crony capitalism:
Crony capitalism is an economy in which businesses thrive not as a result of
risks they take, but rather as a return on money amassed through a nexus between a business
class and the political class.
NB But there's a more explicit definition here, which I like much better:
Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business
depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be
exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special
tax breaks, or other forms of state interventionism.
Yes, we have a spot of bother, and I think that their name - Institute of Public Affairs - is
quite a misnomer.
The way these people operate is more akin to Opus Dei and many other 'secret societies'
that have another public face altogether.
Given that IPA's agenda is a private members wish list which has a huge impact on matters
of a broad public nature, it's rather akin to incest, and we know where the confusion between
Church and State takes us regarding separation of powers, exactly where we are right now .two
Royal Commissions that are joined at the hip, Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
(2013 – 2017) and our current horror show Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation,
and Financial Services Industry which could for all intents and purposes be as long as
aforementioned.
Stay with me, as these are issues that relate to other 'energy' systems, namely money, sex
and power, and if we have any doubts as to how far this cancer has spread, a quick purview of
the following members ought to resolve it for you:
For the 70th Birthday big bash, we know that guests to the party were:
• Gina Rinehart
• Rupert Murdoch
• Tony Abbott
• George Pell - Australian Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church
• Michael Kroger - President of the Victorian division of the Liberal Party of Australia
and former director of the IPA
• Mitch Fifield - Communications Minister
Think horizontal and vertical industries/associations and you begin to get the picture,
and that's before thinking about BCA and VECCI.
First, elect the other mob next time around. They're in the pockets of the multinationals and
the US alliance as well, but they're not quite as bad, yet. The next thing is a full-on
assault on mainstream media. The frontline of the revolution, if there is to be one, is the
media. No more guns or territorial claims, it's a battle for the mind. Education is the key.
The "Neolibs" attack education at every opportunity - teachers, curriculum, funding etc. etc.
but there's nothing wrong with education - the real problem is that the mainstream media
relentlessly, all day every day works to an agenda of dis-education, deliberately undermining
and destroying the work of our schools. They preach doubt and mistrust - of learning, facts,
truth, intelligence, pure science, art, music, culture, thoughtfulness, forbearance, empathy
and altruism. They teach us to monetise and gamble on everything. Their aim is to dumb
everyone down to the point where not only can't they read an analog clock or drive their own
car but become entirely dependent on the word of authority (of which they are the mouthpiece)
for a continued existence. Today, with our vast social platforms we can target their lies and
threats, one by one. Pick each one, attack it, viciously, loudly, risibly, with facts,
comedy, derision and invitations to dance. Spread it wide. Call them out at every
opportunity. Sneer them into oblivion. Mainstream media is the primary problem. That's what
must be destroyed.
No, regrettably they have not.
The neoliberalist 'mistake' has been going on for around 40 yrs now - it has proved a
relentless descent into inequality and austerity.
Chris Bowen
at the National Press Club : "...Labor will go to the next election:
Achieving budget balance in the same year as the government;
Delivering bigger cumulative budget surpluses over forward estimates as well as substantially
bigger surpluses over the ten year medium term; and
That the majority of savings raised from our revenue measures over the medium term will go
towards budget repair and paying down debt...."
Pure neoliberal economic poison that will create further hardship for our citizens, worsen
inequality and recess the economy yet further.
People have got to come to understand that the bigger surpluses Bowen speaks of are
federal tax collection surpluses; i.e. he intends to withdraw further spending capacity from
the private sector, all while the current account deficit already draws 3.5% GDP (~$30bn) a
yr from that same heavily indebted private sector.
This Bowen statement report
from the SMH : "The whiff of a surplus, not reaching at least 1 per cent of GDP until 2026-27, does not
adequately protect Australia against the potential roiling seas of international
uncertainty," he will say.
"Australia needs bigger surpluses, sooner than the government is scheduling.
"We can't afford to let the next four years go to waste in the efforts for a healthier, safer
budget surplus."
Absolute macroeconomic stupidity, arrogant, vandalous ideological madness.
When will the people come to their senses and stop supporting such socially destructive
errant neoliberal economic alchemy?
Just look at the Citizens Assembly overseeing the law change in the recent Irish referendum.
Worked a treat, cause those involved wanted to find the bvest alternative, rather than
feather their own nest.
It is indeed important to make the distinction between the ideology of neoliberalism - the
ideology of private enterprise is good, and public spending is bad - and the operational
system of crony capitalism - the game of mates played by government and the special
interests.
And it is certainly equally important to call out the monumental hypocrisy involved in the
government's application of the ideology's set of rules to the powerless and public and the
government's application of corrupt practice rules to the special interests.
The system is destroying the egalitarian character of Australia and fanning the flames of
nativist authoritarianism here.
But what's even more dangerous is the fundamental dishonesty that the system necessitates,
and the alienating influence it has - on top of the growing economic inequality.
The system has destroyed the economic and environmental viability and sustainability of
the planet on which human civilization depends.
What is becoming increasingly clear to more and more of the public is that - simple put-
the system cannot be allowed to go on as it has been proceeding because it threatens the
future of civilization on earth.
Change is imperative now. However, how that will unfold is unclear, as well as, the toll
the destruc5turing system will take.
What is clear is that a great restructuring must happen - and soon.
That'd be like astronomers saying that although Hellenic astrology is pseudoscientific nonsense they can probably do business
with Ptolemaic or Hindu astrology. Other scientists would laugh and call astronomy the dismal physics. Isn't it about time economists
like yourself just told the knuckle dragging ideologues - of whatever colour and salinity - to fuck off?
The hypothesis is that due to emergence of mutual funds and other financial instruments the capitalist class became more
homogeneous in its interests and more united with financial oligarchy.
Notable quotes:
"... In such a situation there were significant divisions within the capitalist class that attenuated its overall political clout. Industries divided according to policy preferences, and political parties, which were essentially interest group coalitions, attracted different segments of this class. (In the US the Republicans were just as much an interest group coalition as the Democrats, just different interests like small retail business, domestic mining, nonunion manufacturing, etc.) Public policy in this dispensation, whatever its ostensible justification, reflected sectoral influence. ..."
"... Since the early 1970s capital ownership has become substantially more fungible in every respect. Equity funds of various sorts established themselves as institutional players, allowing individual capitalists to diversify via investment in these funds. Regulatory restrictions on capital movements were dismantled or bypassed. New information technology dramatically reduced (but not eliminated!) the fog of all financial markets. ..."
"... The other side of the coin was political influence over ideas. Intellectuals who advanced the positions we now call neoliberal were rewarded with research funding, jobs and influence over government policy. ..."
"... Lending conditionality reproduced in developing countries the same incentives that had shifted the intellectual environment in the core capitalist world. ..."
"... This hypothesis -- and it's important to be clear that's what it is -- also gives us an explanation for why the 2008 crisis, while it did provoke a lot of reconsideration by intellectuals -- did not result in meaningful institutional or policy change: the underlying political economic factors were unaltered . And it implies that further intellectual work, necessary as it is, will not be enough to extricate us from the shackles of neoliberal political constraints. For that we need to contest the power that undergirds them. ..."
"... The alliance (in the US, the focus of my comments) of the monied interests, providing the financial resources and seeking the repeal of the social and fiscal policies of the New Deal, and the heavily Southern-based evangelical/religious right, providing the voting bloc and seeking to turn back the progress of minorities and women in achieving more equal social and political rights -- created the powerful political base from which the revisionist onslaught was mounted. Reagan then provided the smiling face to sell the proposition that "government isn't the solution to your problems; government IS the problem" that effectively neutered the one institution capable of regulating the monied interests. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is a dialectic between them more than it has been a fixed doctrine. The remarkable power and resistance to outside critique is attributable to the insular nature of that dialectic. ..."
"... Where we are -- neoliberalism triumphant albeit spent ..."
A standard narrative is that the Keynesian postwar order cracked up over the crisis of inflation during the mid-1970s. A conservative
alternative that trusted markets more and government less was vindicated by events and established its intellectual dominance. After
a lag of a few years, policy followed along. One can critique this on matters of detail: economic growth remained stronger during
the 70s than it would be thereafter, anti-Keynesians did not have a superior understanding of economic developments, and no intellectual
revolution was complete within the space of just a few years. But the deeper problem, it seems to me, is that this attributes vastly
exaggerated agency to coteries of intellectuals. Do we really think that the elections of Reagan and Thatcher, for instance, were
attributable to a shift in grad school syllabi in economics and related fields?
I propose an alternative hypothesis. From the end of WWII to the collapse of the Bretton Woods monetary system, a large portion
of capital was illiquid, its value tied to its existing use. The rich sought to diversify their portfolios, of course, but there
were limits. Stock market transactions were beclouded by large information costs, and share ownership tended to be more stable and
concentrated. Fortunes were rooted in specific firms and industries. In such a situation there were significant divisions within
the capitalist class that attenuated its overall political clout. Industries divided according to policy preferences, and political
parties, which were essentially interest group coalitions, attracted different segments of this class. (In the US the Republicans
were just as much an interest group coalition as the Democrats, just different interests like small retail business, domestic mining,
nonunion manufacturing, etc.) Public policy in this dispensation, whatever its ostensible justification, reflected sectoral influence.
Since the early 1970s capital ownership has become substantially more fungible in every respect. Equity funds of various sorts
established themselves as institutional players, allowing individual capitalists to diversify via investment in these funds. Regulatory
restrictions on capital movements were dismantled or bypassed. New information technology dramatically reduced (but not eliminated!)
the fog of all financial markets. And firms themselves became separable bundles of assets as new technology and business methods
allowed for more integrated production across ownership lines. The combined result is a capitalist class with more uniform interests
-- an interest in a higher profit share of income and greater freedom for capital in every respect.
The crisis in real returns to
capital during the 1970s, the true economic instigator, galvanized this reorganization of the political economy. (In the US the S&P
peaked in 1972 and then lost almost half its inflation-adjusted value by the end of the decade. This is not an artifact of business
cycle timing.)
Of course, all understanding of the world is mediated by the way we think about it. The wealthy didn't say to themselves, "Gee,
my assets are taking a hit, so the government needs to change course." They turned to dissident, conservative thinkers who explained
the "failures" of the 70s as the result of too little concern for the engine of growth, which (of course) was understood to be private
investment. Market-friendly policy would, it was said, reinvigorate investment and spur economic growth. Keynesianism was seen as
having failed because it took investors for granted, taxing and regulating them and competing with them for finance; politicians
needed to show respect. It's understandable why capitalists would interpret their problems in this way.
The other side of the coin was political influence over ideas. Intellectuals who advanced the positions we now call neoliberal
were rewarded with research funding, jobs and influence over government policy. When the World Bank and the IMF were remade in the
wake of the 1982 debt crisis, this influence was extended internationally. Lending conditionality reproduced in developing countries
the same incentives that had shifted the intellectual environment in the core capitalist world.
This hypothesis -- and it's important to be clear that's what it is -- also gives us an explanation for why the 2008 crisis,
while it did provoke a lot of reconsideration by intellectuals -- did not result in meaningful institutional or policy change:
the underlying political economic
factors were unaltered . And it implies that further intellectual work, necessary as it is, will not be enough to extricate us
from the shackles of neoliberal political constraints. For that we need to contest the power that undergirds them.
The alliance (in the US, the focus of my comments) of the monied interests, providing the financial resources and seeking
the repeal of the social and fiscal policies of the New Deal, and the heavily Southern-based evangelical/religious right, providing
the voting bloc and seeking to turn back the progress of minorities and women in achieving more equal social and political rights
-- created the powerful political base from which the revisionist onslaught was mounted. Reagan then provided the smiling face
to sell the proposition that "government isn't the solution to your problems; government IS the problem" that effectively neutered
the one institution capable of regulating the monied interests.
An interesting discussion of the roots, differences and similarities between neoliberalism and ordoliberalism. And believe it
or not, the many comments raise some interesting points. Only one real gaslighting comment.
One thing Barkley said should be repeated: neoliberalism has opposing poles quite a distance apart. Neoliberalism is a dialectic
between them more than it has been a fixed doctrine. The remarkable power and resistance to outside critique is attributable to
the insular nature of that dialectic. The neoliberal right has chosen its interlocutors, the centrist "left" very well, which
is an important reason that the non-neoliberal real Left is emerging now from the sojurn in the politics of cultural critique
where it went in the 1960's with no knowledge or interest in economics.
It does not take a genius to see that human civilization and the natural ecology can only survive if people somehow manage
to produce a rational architecture for political economy deliberately and on an unprecedented scale and level of sophistication.
Where we are -- neoliberalism triumphant albeit spent and a Left at peak consciousness -- is exactly the wrong place to be in
the political cycle.
Michael Greenwood , Geoff Naylor and David Murray on the failures of economic policy
While agreeing with the thrust of Paul Mason's article (
A new politics of emotion is needed to beat the far right , Journal, 26 November), it is
surely necessary to employ economics if we are to defeat neoliberalism. We have lived under
this regime, with increasing severity, for 25 years or so. The result has been the stagnation
of real incomes for the large majority, with the benefits of GDP growth accruing to those at
the top of income and wealth distributions. This has suppressed growth, as those with less
money tend to spend it and those with more hide it and avoid tax. Lower UK growth is clearly
shown in comparative data.
So if neoliberalism is a school of economics, it is a failure if the aim of economic policy
is to encourage growth and the reinvestment of the benefits. Of course, neoliberalism is not
economics, it is political dogma, supported by its beneficiaries. We need economics
undergraduates to demand to be taught real economics and not the propaganda of power that is
neoliberalism.
Michael Greenwood Manchester
• In his search for a political narrative of economic hope to counteract the rise of
rightwing populism, Paul Mason overlooks the sense of belonging that exists in faith
communities. Here, a selfless collaboration for the inclusive good of one another has never
required disruption of the free-market economy. It is just that this ethos has not been
introduced at the national economic and political levels.
Geoff Naylor Winchester, Hampshire
• All suffered the same 2007-08 financial crash, but the "UK has weakest wage growth of
wealthy nations" ( Report
, 27 November). Anything to do with Tory-led government economic policy?
David Murray Wallington, Surrey
For 40 years, the ideology popularly known as "neoliberalism" has dominated political decision-making in the English-speaking
west.
People hate
it . Neoliberalism's sale of state assets, offshored jobs, stripped services, poorly-invested infrastructure and armies of the
forcibly unemployed have delivered, not promised "efficiency" and "flexibility" to communities, but discomfort and misery. The wealth
of a few has now swelled to a level of conspicuousness that must politely be considered
vulgar
yet the philosophy's entrenched itself so deeply in how governments make decisions and allocate resources that one of its megaphones
once declared its triumph "the end of history".
... ... ...
Paul Keating's rejection
It was a year ago that a third sign first appeared, when the dark horse of Australian prime ministers, Paul Keating, made public
an on-balance rejection of neoliberal economics. Although Liberal PM Malcolm Fraser instigated Australia's first neoliberal policies,
it was Keating's architecture of privatisation and deregulation as a Labor treasurer and prime minister that's most well remembered.
Now, "we have a comatose world economy held together by debt and central bank money," Keating has said, "Liberal economics has run
into a dead end and has had no answer to the contemporary malaise." What does the disavowal mean? In terms of his Labor heir Bill Shorten's growing appetite for redistributive taxation and close relationship to the union movement, it means "if Bill Shorten becomes
PM, the rule of engagement between labour and capital will be rewritten," according to The Australian this week. Can't wait!
Tony
Abbott becomes a fan of nationalising assets
Or maybe's Sukkar's right about the socialists termiting his beloved Liberal party. How else to explain the earthquake-like paradigm
shift represented by the sixth sign? Since when do neoliberal conservatives argue for the renationalisation of infrastructure, as
is the push of Tony Abbott's gang to nationalise the coal-fired Liddell power station? It may be a cynical stunt to take an unscientific
stand against climate action, but seizing the means of production remains seizing the means of production, um, comrade. "You know,
nationalising assets is what the Liberal party was founded to stop governments doing," said Turnbull, even as he hid in the dens
and in the rocks of the mountains to weather – strange coincidence –
yet another Newspoll
loss.
"new introduction to a re-released Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto.
Collective, democratic political action is our only chance for freedom and enjoyment."
Might be true. But frightening that people should naively still think that democracy is to be found in the 'Dictatorship of
the Proletariat' [ ie those who know what's good for you even if you don't like it ] of the Communist Manifesto after the revelations
of what that leads to in the Gulag Archipelago , Mao's China , Pol Pot , Kim John - un .
How quickly the world forgets. - you
might just as well advocate Mein Kampf it's the same thing in the end !
That's what you claim and it might be so but I'm not interested in keeping a score on the matter. The point you failed to get
is that the people you mentioned where totalitarian thugs. They used the banner of communism to achieve their ends. They would
have used what ever ideology that was in fashion to achieve the same results.
Does present day neo-liberalism actually qualify as a political movement?
Vested interests and the dollar seem to have all the power. Lies and deception are so common the truth is seen as the enemy.
The voting public are merely fools for manipulation. Nah, neo-liberalism is not government, it is something far nastier, and clearly
not what the public vote for, presuming a vote actually counts for anything anymore.
A decade after the subprime bubble burst, a new one seems to be taking its place – a
phenomenon aptly characterized by Ricardo Caballero, Emmanuel Farhi, and Pierre-Olivier
Gourinchas as "
Financial 'Whac-a-Mole .'" A world economy geared toward increasing the supply of
financial assets has hooked us into a global game of waiting for the next bubble to
emerge somewhere.
Like the synchronous boom in residential housing prior to 2007 across several advanced
markets, CLOs have also gained in popularity in Europe. Higher investor appetite for European
CLOs has predictably led to a
surge in issuance (up almost 40% in 2018). Japanese banks, desperately seeking higher
yields, have swelled the ranks of buyers. The networks for financial contagion, should things
turn ugly, are already in place.
Right now neo-fascism is the most probably scenario of the social system after the decline of
neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... But, in Europe, there has always been a deep distrust of the Anglo-American celebration of "possessive individualism" and its repudiation of community and society. Remember Margaret Thatcher's contempt for the idea of "society"? So, it is unsurprising that neoliberalism's advocates dismiss recent European analyses of local, regional and global economies as the nostalgia of "old Europe", even as neoliberalism's failures stack up unrelentingly. ..."
"... The consequences of these failures are largely unseen or avoided by policymakers in the US and their camp followers in the UK and Australia. They are in denial of the fact that not only has neoliberalism failed to meet its claimed goals, but it has worked devastatingly to undermine the very foundations of late-modern capitalism. The result is that the whole shambolic structure is tottering on the edge of an economic abyss. ..."
"... If Streeck is correct, then we need to anticipate what a post-capitalist world may look like. He thinks it will be terrible. He fears the emergence of a neocorporatist state and close crony-like collaboration between big capital, union leaders, government and the military as the consequence of the next major global financial crisis ..."
"... Jobs will disappear, Streeck believes. Capital will be intensely concentrated in very few hands. The privileged rich will retreat into security enclaves dripping with every luxury imaginable ..."
"... Meanwhile, the masses will be cast adrift in a polluted and miserable world where life – as Hobbes put it – will be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. ..."
"... As Piketty and Streeck are pointing out to us, the post-neoliberal era has started to self-destruct. Either a post-capitalist, grimly neo-fascist world awaits us, or one shaped by a new and highly creative version of communitarian democracy. It's time for some great imagining. ..."
It is unfashionable, or just embarrassing, to suggest the
taken-for-granted late-modern economic order – neoliberal capitalism – may be in a
terminal decline. At least that's the case in what former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott
likes to call the "Anglosphere" .
What was once known as the Chicago school of economics
– the neoclassical celebration of the "free market" and "small government" – still
closes the minds of economic policymakers in the US and its satellite economies (although
perhaps less so in contemporary Canada).
But, in Europe, there has always been a deep distrust of the Anglo-American celebration
of "possessive individualism" and its repudiation of community and society. Remember Margaret
Thatcher's
contempt for the idea of "society"? So, it is unsurprising that neoliberalism's advocates
dismiss recent European analyses of local, regional and global economies as the nostalgia of
"old Europe", even as neoliberalism's failures stack up unrelentingly.
The consequences of these failures are largely unseen or avoided by policymakers in the
US and their camp followers in the UK and Australia. They are in denial of the fact that not
only has neoliberalism failed to meet its claimed goals, but it has worked devastatingly to
undermine the very foundations of late-modern capitalism. The result is that the whole
shambolic structure is tottering on the edge of an economic abyss.
What the
consequences might be
Two outstanding European scholars who are well aware of the consequences of the neoliberal
catastrophe are French economist Thomas Piketty and German economist Wolfgang Streeck.
Piketty's 2013 book, Capital in the
Twenty-First Century , charts the dangers of socioeconomic inequality in capitalism's
history. He demonstrates how this inequality can be – and has been over time –
fundamentally destructive of sustained economic growth.
Most compellingly, Piketty documented in meticulous detail how contemporary neoliberal
policies have constructed the worst forms of socioeconomic inequalities in history. His
analysis has been underlined by the recent Oxfam report that showed a mere eight
multi-billionaires own the equivalent amount of capital of half of the global population.
Despite Piketty's scrupulous scholarship, Western neoliberal economies continue merrily down
the road to nowhere. The foundations of that road were laid by the egregiously ideological
policies of Thatcher and Ronald Reagan – and slavishly followed by Australian politicians
on all sides ever since.
Streeck's equally detailed scholarship has demonstrated how destructive of capitalism itself
neoliberal policymaking has been. His latest book, How Will Capitalism
End? , demonstrates how this neoliberal capitalism triumphed over its opponents (especially
communism) by devouring its critics and opponents, obviating all possible alternatives to its
predatory ways.
If Streeck is correct, then we need to anticipate what a post-capitalist world may look
like. He thinks it will be terrible. He fears the emergence of a neocorporatist state and close
crony-like collaboration between big capital, union leaders, government and the military as the
consequence of the next major global financial crisis .
Jobs will disappear, Streeck believes. Capital will be intensely concentrated in very
few hands. The privileged rich will retreat into security enclaves dripping with every luxury
imaginable .
Meanwhile, the masses will be cast adrift in a polluted and miserable world where life
– as Hobbes put it – will be solitary,
poor, nasty, brutish and short.
What comes next is up to us
The extraordinary thing is how little is known or understood of the work of thinkers like
Piketty and Streeck in Australia today.
There have been very fine local scholars, precursors of the Europeans, who have warned about
the hollow promises of "economic rationalism" in Australia.
But, like the Europeans, their wisdom has been sidelined, even as inequality has been
deepening exponentially and its populist consequences have begun to poison our politics,
tearing down the last shreds of our ramshackle democracy.
The time is ripe for some creative imagining of a new post-neoliberal world that will repair
neoliberalism's vast and catastrophic failures while laying the groundwork for an Australia
that can play a leading role in the making of a cosmopolitan and co-operative world.
Three immediate steps can be taken to start on this great journey.
First, we need to see the revival of what American scholar Richard Falk called "globalisation
from below" . This is the enlivening of international civil society to balance the power of
the self-serving elites (multinational managers and their political and military puppets) now
in power.
Second, we need to come up with new forms of democratic governance that reject the fiction
that the current politics of representative government constitute the highest form of
democracy. There is nothing about representative government that is democratic. All it amounts
to is what Vilfredo Pareto described as
"the circulation of elites" who have become remote from – and haughtily contemptuous
of – the people they rule.
Third, we need to see states intervening comprehensively in the so-called "free market".
Apart from re-regulating economic activity, this means positioning public enterprises in
strategic parts of the economy, to compete with the private sector, not on their terms but
exclusively in the interests of all citizens.
As Piketty and Streeck are pointing out to us, the post-neoliberal era has started to
self-destruct. Either a post-capitalist, grimly neo-fascist world awaits us, or one shaped by a
new and highly creative version of communitarian democracy. It's time for some great
imagining.
This article is based on an earlier piece published in John Menadue's blog Pearls
and Irritations.
Since
I last wrote about the bipartisan shrieking, hysterical reaction to Trump's planned
military withdrawal from Syria the other day, it hasn't gotten better, it's gotten worse. I'm
having a hard time even picking out individual bits of the collective freakout from the
political/media class to point at, because doing so would diminish the frenetic white noise of
the paranoid, conspiratorial, fearmongering establishment reaction to the possibility of a few
thousands troops being pulled back from a territory they were illegally occupying .
Endless war and military expansionism has become so normalized in establishment thought that
even a slight scale-down is treated as something abnormal and shocking. The talking heads of
the corporate state media had been almost entirely ignoring the buildup of US troops in Syria
and the operations they've been carrying out there, but as soon as the possibility of those
troops leaving emerged, all the alarm bells started ringing. Endless war was considered so
normal that nobody ever talked about it, then Trump tweeted he's bringing the troops home, and
now every armchair liberal in America who had no idea what a Kurd was until five minutes ago is
suddenly an expert on Erdoğan and the YPG. Lindsey Graham, who has never met an
unaccountable US military occupation he didn't like, is now suddenly cheerleading for
congressional oversight: not for sending troops into wars, but for pulling them out.
"I would urge my colleagues in the Senate and the House, call people from the
administration and explain this policy," Graham recently told
reporters on Capitol Hill. "This is the role of the Congress, to make administrations
explain their policy, not in a tweet, but before Congress answering questions."
"It is imperative Congress hold hearings on withdrawal decision in Syria --
and potentially Afghanistan -- to understand implications to our
national security," Graham tweeted today .
In an even marginally sane world, the fact that a nation's armed forces are engaged in daily
military violence would be cause for shock and alarm, and pulling those forces out of that
situation would be viewed as a return to normalcy. Instead we are seeing the exact opposite. In
an even marginally sane world, congressional oversight would be required to send the US
military to invade countries and commit acts of war, because that act, not withdrawing them, is
what's abnormal. Instead we are seeing the exact opposite.
A hypothetical space alien observing our civilization for the first time would conclude that
we are insane, and that hypothetical space alien would be absolutely correct. Have some Reese's
Pieces, hypothetical space alien.
It is absolutely bat shit crazy that we feel normal about the most powerful military force
in the history of civilization running around the world invading and occupying and bombing and
killing, yet are made to feel weird about the possibility of any part of that ending . It is
absolutely bat shit crazy that endless war is normalized while the possibility of peace and
respecting national sovereignty to any extent is aggressively abnormalized. In a sane world the
exact opposite would be true, but in our world this self-evident fact has been obscured. In a
sane world anyone who tried to convince you that war is normal would be rejected and shunned,
but in our world those people make six million dollars a year reading from a teleprompter on
MSNBC.
How did this happen to us? How did we get so crazy and confused?
I sometimes hear the analogy of sleepwalking used; people are sleepwalking through life, so
they believe the things the TV tells them to believe, and this turns them into a bunch of
mindless zombies marching to the beat of CIA/CNN narratives and consenting to unlimited
military bloodbaths around the world. I don't think this is necessarily a useful way of
thinking about our situation and our fellow citizens. I think a much more useful way of looking
at our plight is to retrace our steps and think about how everyone got to where they're at as
individuals.
We come into this world screaming and clueless, and it doesn't generally get much better
from there. We look around and we see a bunch of grownups moving confidently around us, and
they sure look like they know what's going on. So we listen real attentively to what they're
telling us about our world and how it works, not realizing that they're just repeating the same
things grownups told them when they were little, and not realizing that if any of those
grownups were really honest with themselves they're just moving learned concepts around inside
a headspace that's just as clueless about life's big questions as the day it was born.
And that's just early childhood. Once you move out of that and start learning about
politics, philosophy, religion etc as you get bigger, you run into a whole bunch of clever
faces who've figured out how to use your cluelessness about life to their advantage. You
stumble toward adulthood without knowing what's going on, and then confident-sounding people
show up and say "Oh hey I know what's going on. Follow me." And before you know it you're
donating ten percent of your income to some church, addicted to drugs, in an abusive
relationship, building your life around ideas from old books which were promoted by dead kings
to the advantage of the powerful, or getting your information about the world from Fox
News.
For most people life is like stumbling around in a dark room you have no idea how you got
into, without even knowing what you're looking for. Then as you're reaching around in the
darkness your hand is grasped by someone else's hand, and it says in a confident-sounding
voice, "I know where to go. Come with me." The owner of the other hand doesn't know any more
about the room than you do really, they just know how to feign confidence. And it just so
happens that most of those hands in the darkness are actually leading you in the service of the
powerful.
That's all mainstream narratives are: hands reaching out in the darkness of a confusing
world, speaking in confident-sounding voices and guiding you in a direction which benefits the
powerful. The largest voices belong to the rich and the powerful, which means those are the
hands you're most likely to encounter when stumbling around in the darkness. You go to school
which is designed to indoctrinate you into mainstream narratives, you consume media which is
designed to do the same, and most people find themselves led from hand to hand in this way all
the way to the grave.
That's really all everyone's doing here, reaching out in the darkness of a confusing world
and trying to find our way to the truth. It's messy as hell and there are so many
confident-sounding voices calling out to us giving us false directions about where to go, and
lots of people get lost to the grabbing hands of power-serving narratives. But the more of us
who learn to see through the dominant narratives and discover the underlying truths, the more
hands there are to guide others away from the interests of the powerful and toward a sane
society. A society in which people abhor war and embrace peace, in which people collaborate
with each other and their environment, in which people overcome the challenges facing our
species and create a beautiful world together.
People aren't sleepwalking, they are being duped . Duped into insanity in a confusing,
abrasive world where it's hard enough just to get your legs underneath you and figure out which
way's up, let alone come to a conscious truth-based understanding of what's really going on in
the world. But the people doing the duping are having a hard time holding onto everyone's hand,
and
their grip is slipping . We'll find our way out of this dark room yet.
Has anyone noticed that Rachel Maddow with her sooo patronizing, sooo objectionally smug
manner, implying that anyone who likes Trump is laughably pathetic, well – she keeps on
doing this and oddly (and effectively) generates a lot of support for Trump and what he's
doing. Her absolutely foul manner is perfectly crafted to turn folks against her and what she
espouses. You go girl!
It seems to me that, objectively, there are about three basic reasons for Endless War in
the Middle East.
One, to insure the security of the Israeli state. Two, to insure the free flow of cheap ME
petroleum to our 'trading partners' around the world who burn it to make cheap **** and ship
it across sealanes kept open by the U.S. Navy to Walmart and Amazon for resale (on credit!)
to the sheeple. Three, to finance the multi-billion dollar arms-building American MIC.
Purposes One, Two and Three mutually reinforce each other. You don't have to agree with all
Purposes as long as you agree with one of them. Proponents of Purpose One find allies among
the proponents of Purposes Two and Three. And vice versa. And, in a 'virtuous' (or is it
vicious?) circle, all at the top get very rich. The ultra-wealthy supporters of Israel, the
globalists, the corporatists, the militarists and their financiers and media mouthpieces.
Essentially all the new money in the Billionaire Class.
And who is opposed to this little arrangement? A few libertarians, and realists, and some
historians? A few folks on 'conservative' (but not neocon) websites? A few deplorables who
are actually thinking about their own best interests? A few people morally offended by the
notion of living in an 'exceptional' country which sponsors deadly perpetual war? A few
people who think its crazy to go half way around the world to kill people engaged in a
conflict which is critical to their daily lives but theoretical to us? A few men and women
who have seen combat and know the bloody truth? A few people who would prefer to re-invest in
the United States and repair the damage done to this country over the last forty years?
When you think about it the deck is definitely stacked in favor of Endless War. And what
Trump did on Thursday is again rather extraordinary.
At the same time, however, it seems fair to point out that Trump and López Obrador both represent what
the Times described as "a global repudiation of the establishment." Indeed, this fact could actually help to distinguish
between the two leaders (along with other populist leaders) and their competing worldviews. While they stand on opposite sides
of the political spectrum, both Trump and López Obrador are part of the global revolt against what critics call neoliberalism,
and this is important for understanding our current era.
The past 30-plus years has been defined by the
political
project
of neoliberalism, spearheaded by the U.S. government and international financial institutions like the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, with the utopian aim of creating a global capitalist economy perfectly guided
by the invisible hand of the market (for neoliberals and free-market fundamentalists, the invisible hand is an almost divine
concept, worshipped in economics departments around the country). The neoliberal era peaked in the 1990s, and in America it
was Democratic President Bill Clinton who accomplished neoliberal "reforms" that right-wingers had long dreamed of, including
financial deregulation, NAFTA and "ending welfare as we knew it" (he would probably have
privatized
Social Security too
had it not been for Monica Lewinsky).
Though the 1990s is often remembered as the beginning of our hyper-partisan age (demonstrated by the Clinton impeachment
scandal), the irony is that Democrats and Republicans became closer than ever before on economic issues during this decade.
The "Washington consensus" dominated this period, and it took a Democrat to pass a Republican trade deal and other
conservative economic policies. (Not surprisingly, the Democratic Party's shift to the right simply resulted in the GOP
shifting even further to the right.)
Neoliberalism was a global project advanced by economic elites. Not surprisingly, then, the neoliberal policies of the past
few decades have benefited those who pushed for them, creating enormous wealth for the richest individuals while leaving the
world grossly unequal. According to Oxfam, 82 percent of the wealth created in 2017
went
to the top one percent
, while the poorest half got nothing. In America alone, inequality is at historic levels and more
than 40 million people live in poverty; a
UN report
from
last month notes that the U.S. "now has one of the lowest rates of intergenerational social mobility of any of the rich
countries," and zip codes "are tragically reliable predictors of a child's future employment and income prospects."
Advertisement:
In Europe, Latin America, Asia and the United States, the status quo is no longer acceptable to a populace that has been
betrayed time and again throughout the neoliberal era. Leaders who represent this status quo are being thrown out of office
left and right. Those who have challenged the "establishment" have been labeled "populists" by the press, of course, and
thus are categorized more for what they stand
against
than what they stand
for
(this would be like
identifying the Soviet Union and the U.S. for their anti-fascism, rather than their communism or capitalism).
Some dispute the characterization of right-wing populists as anti-neoliberal, and correctly point out that most of the
Trump administration's economic policies have actually been neoliberalism on steroids (e.g., the GOP tax bill, deregulation,
etc.). Right-wing populism is purely about racism and xenophobia, these critics insist, and to make it about economics is to
ignore these ugly realities. But as Thomas Frank
pointed
out
in The Guardian back in 2016, "trade may be [Trump's] single biggest concern -- not white supremacy."
"It seems to obsess him," wrote Frank, who watched several hours of Trump's speeches. "The destructive free-trade deals our
leaders have made, the many companies that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make
to those companies' CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US."
Say what you will about Trump's tendency to lie and spew falsehoods, but on the issue of trade he has actually been pretty
consistent since entering the White House, and free trade is one of the staples of the neoliberal project. On the left, free
trade deals like NAFTA and TPP have also been major talking points, as we saw with Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign in
2016. There are other economic issues where some agreement exists, and right-wing populist parties in Europe are even more
likely to be anti-neoliberal on economic issues. Marine Le Pen's National Front, for example,
opposed
austerity cuts and promised to increase welfare for the working class
(at least for French citizens), while lowering the
retirement age and increasing tariffs to benefit French companies (and, the claim goes, workers too).
Advertisement:
Still, the left- and right-wing alternatives to neoliberalism are poles apart, and the differences between left-populists
like López Obrador and Sanders and right-populists like Trump and Le Pen are hard to overstate. To appreciate just how
different their worldviews are, it is worth considering how the left and right have historically understood themselves in
relation to the Enlightenment and modernity.
Throughout the modern era progressives and reactionaries have more or less rejected the status quo, with thinkers from both
sides offering critiques of the modern world. The fundamental difference was that the left considered itself a part of the
Enlightenment tradition, while the right was part of the "counter-Enlightenment" (this goes back to the French Revolution,
when revolutionaries sat on the left side of the Estates General and royalists sat on the right).
The left criticized modernity not because it rejected the modern world, but because it saw the Enlightenment project as
incomplete. Karl Marx praised the bourgeoisie and called capitalism a "great civilizing influence," considering it to be a
positive development in history. He also wrote the most influential critique of capitalism to date, and while he acknowledged
that capitalism was progress over feudalism, he also believed that it must eventually be replaced with socialism to
realize the goals of the Enlightenment. Put simply, Marx and other leftists believed in the idea of progress, long associated
with the Enlightenment.
On the right, criticisms of modernity came from a very different perspective. Reactionaries did not see the modern world as
progress over the pre-modern world; rather, they saw it as a decline. Driven by nostalgia and resentment, reactionaries
romanticized the past and believed that the ills of modernity could be cured by simply turning back the clock and restoring
the status quo ante.
In his classic book "
Escape from Freedom
," the psychiatrist and
social philosopher Erich Fromm attempted to make sense of the rise of fascism in the early 20th century, and in doing so
offered a penetrating analysis of modernity. While the modern world had liberated men and women from social conventions of the
past and various restrictions on the individual (i.e., "freedom from"), it had also severed what Fromm called "primary bonds,"
which gave security to the individual and provided meaning. Forced from their communities into urban and industrial
environments, modern men and women were left alienated and rootless, feeling powerless and purposeless in the new world.
Advertisement:
There were two ways that people could respond to this situation, Fromm argued; either they could reject freedom
altogether and embrace counter-Enlightenment movements like fascism, or they could progress to a "positive freedom," where one
can relate oneself "spontaneously to the world in love and work."
"If the economic, social and political conditions on which the whole process of human individuation depends, do not offer a
basis for the realization of individuality," wrote Fromm, "while at the same time people have lost those ties which gave them
security, this lag makes freedom an unbearable burden." Freedom, he continued, "becomes identical with doubt, with a kind of
life which lacks meaning and direction. Powerful tendencies arise to escape from this kind of freedom into submission or some
kind of relationship to man and the world which promises relief from uncertainty, even if it deprives the individual of his
freedom."
The reactionary impulse would be to "escape from freedom" and restore the conventions and "primary bonds" of the past,
while the progressive impulse would be to progress to a more complete and dynamic kind of freedom.
The reader may be wondering where all of this fits in with the current revolt against neoliberalism. Put simply, the
neoliberal age has left many people with the same kind of doubts and anxieties that Fromm discussed in his book almost 80
years ago. Numerous articles have been written in recent years about how the policies of neoliberalism have
worsened stress and loneliness
, exacerbated
mental
health problems
,
driven
rising rates of suicide
and the opioid crisis, and left people feeling desperate and hopeless in general. Globalization,
deindustrialization, consumerism and "financialization"; all these economic trends are contributing to the breakdown of our
democratic society, leading some to embrace authoritarian alternatives, as many did in Fromm's day.
From this point of view, the global rise of populism that continued with López Obrador isn't much of a surprise. The
popular rejection of neoliberalism around the world is undeniable at this point, but it is still unclear whether this
rejection of the status quo will lead to reactionary or progressive change in the long run. López Obrador represents
progressive change, as does Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's surprise primary victory in New York's 14th congressional district.
Trump and other far-right populists like Le Pen represent something very different.
Advertisement:
It will ultimately come down to which side can offer the more appealing alternative, and the left should recognize that the
more realistic and "pragmatic" approach isn't always the most politically persuasive. One of the most common criticisms of
populists has been that they are selling a pipe dream, which to an extent is true -- especially for right-wing populists who
base their entire worldview on falsehoods. If the left wants to stop reactionary populism, however, it will have to adopt an
unapologetically populist approach of its own, and reject the dogma of neoliberalism once and for all.
Captain
Nonobvious
Leader
21 Jul
Neoliberalism is nothing more than a set of excuses and fables for giving more wealth, power
and income to the rich and well off than they have at any given moment, and for distributing
the assets of ownership and governance across borders, out of reach and jurisdiction of the
people.
Which brings us to today.
But what next? Neoliberalism is ending because enough of society now is owned and run by the top end --completely in Russia,
and mostly, here in the US-- that the people no longer have enough to work with to compete
against oligarchy.
In the US there's no more need for the pretense, so we get the blatant language and behavior of a Trump, and public display
of the aggression against the people and the nation that neoliberalism has been practicing
out of view all along. (It's not actually been so much hidden as willfully ignored by
moderates and commentators since the Administration of the previous lying, delusional
national media star.)
What's next is rapid consolidation of oligarchy. The Supreme Court will be held by oligarchy
fanatics for the coming 40 years, and will be ruling every imaginable practice of liberal or
progressive governance to be unconstitutional. Even an economic collapse like the Great
Depression can't unseat a Court, and no voting majorities can legislate against their
Constitution.
Basho
Leader
21 Jul
No matter how much you pretty up neoliberalism with racial diversity, women' empowerment, and
homosexual rights, it still stinks. Neoliberalism has turned the Democratic Party into a
political-correct Republican Party. All the great accomplishments that came from the1930s to
the mid-70s are gone. Democrats have become the party of the oligarchs and the professional
elites who serve them. They have - as Thomas Frank has suggested - ceased to be the party of
the people. The whole point of neoliberalism is to please big money donors by dismantling all
that Democrats did to help and ordinary working Americans before the1980s. This had been what
Noam Chomsky called Amerca's Golden Age. America had become the finest country to live in in
the entire history of the world. That's gone. Today Democrats join with Republicans in
supporting a corporate oligarchy. If the Democratic Party is to have a future (and if I am to
be a part of it) they must turn to new voices like Tulsi Gabbard and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
They need to make Bernie Sanders the Chair of the Democratic Party. And they need to quit
warmongering. The Democratic Party must model itself after Jeremy Corbyn in the UK and Andrés
Manuel López Obrador in Mexico. Neoliberalism is a plague. It is anti-democratic. It must
end. The Democratic Party must once again be a moral force for economic justice.
Mike Calcagno
Leader
Basho
23 Jul
Edited
nYes, things were great in American cities in the 60s and 70s. Those riots - how
wonderful? Almost 1000 murders a year in Chicago in the early 70s, more than 2000 a year
in New York. Major American cities looked like Dresden after WWII in many neighborhoods.
LBJ was a warmonger who got 57000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians
killed, and Kennedy won by running to the right of Nixon. You continue to peddle this
nonsense that there was this golden age of liberalism. There was a brief period where the
White working class did well as a result of unions, and because wealthier white men who
served with them during the war felt an obligation to their fellow servicemen. As usual,
you ignore the plight of non-White Americans. I'm not calling you a racist; I'm
challenging you on your myopia. n
Reply
Share
Basho
Leader
Mike Calcagno
23 Jul
Edited
Today we have police armed with military equipment harassing and killing people of color
in American cities. Driving while Black has become a crime. Our Golden Age (which ended in
the 1970s) saw the least economic inequality of any industrialized nation. FDR created an
excellent economic safety net. He essentially created our middle class. Today we have
greatest wealth inequality of any industrialized nation. In the Golden Age we had the
nonviolent Civil Rights Movement (in which I participated.) There was a major peace
movement in the Democratic Party (in which I participated.) We had the War on Poverty.
Unions were strong. Working people had a decent standard of living. The Democratic Party
was actually liberal (The word liberal today has been drained of all meaning.) Kennedy
ran, not to the right of NIxon but as a hawk like Nixon, but at the time of his death he
was working to get out of Vietnam. And he started pushing the Democratic Party towards
civil rights.Kennedy got rid of the evil Alan Dulles as head of the CIA. Today's Dulles's
techniques are a clear part of the Democratic Party's foreign policy. Our CIA is Murder
Incorporated. The Democratic Party that I once loved has gone to hell.
Reply
Share
Show
2
more replies
FreeQuark
Leader
22 Jul
The social agenda of the left is entirely compatible with neoliberalism, and in fact certain
aspects of that social agenda - unrestricted immigration, for example - are fundamental
components of neoliberal economic ideology. Neoliberal politicians who are members of
center/left political parties thus run on a far left social platform and thereby win election
after election over economic progressives. The left has consequently neutered itself on
economics through its overemphasis on social issues. Most people on the left are totally
unwilling to acknowledge that reality, and that is why neoliberals will continue to dominate
center/left politics around the world. Even though "progressives" may manage to win an
election here or there, neoliberals will always be able to maintain overall control of
center/left parties by associating left-wing economics with opposition to immigration and
other alleged "right-wing" causes. For people on the left primarily concerned about
economics, alternative right politicians on the order of Trump or Le Pen are likely to remain
the only viable political options in most elections for a long time to come.
Reply
Share
1 Like
Darren
Tomlyn
Leader
21 Jul
Edited
Humanity now stands at a crossroads, for there's a difference between reacting against the
corruption of civilization, and reacting against civilization itself... The latter is
unfortunately what Trump (and Brexit) truly represents. If the latter is what people vote
for, then they vote for DEATH... Unfortunately, as has been proven throughout the past few
thousand years, this usually ultimately results in their very own death at the same time.
Although neoliberalism has been about the corruption of capitalism - using economic power to
get one part of humanity to essentially wage war on the rest to further their own goals -
this particular underlying economic conflict (the rich and powerful vs everyone else) is
inherent to civilization, and is what government exists to manage. So again, the main problem
stems from people not learning from history and repeating many of the same mistakes, even it
the context and outcomes merely rhyme...
Todd
Dunning
Leader
22 Jul
Can someone here help me out to properly define "Neoliberalism"?
Reply
Share
FreeQuark
Leader
Todd Dunning
22 Jul
Neoliberalism is the idea that the removal of protectionist trade policies, government
regulations, immigration quotas, and other barriers to international commerce is the key
to economic growth and prosperity. It's safe to say I think that the adoption of the
neoliberal policy agenda by many governments around the world has not produced the outcome
that economists and globalist think tanks claimed it would produce. The problem now is
that mainstream political parties in Western countries have bought, hook, line, and sinker
into neoliberalism and are refusing to let it go regardless of its failings. The reason
they won't let it go of course is that most of those parties are controlled by wealthy
people who haven't been harmed by neoliberal policies. I'm guessing Justin Trudeau,
Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, and the Clintons have never lost a night's sleep worrying
that the factory they work in may move overseas or that they will lose a job to some
upwardly-mobile immigrant.
Reply
Share
2
Likes
RobertSF
Leader
Todd Dunning
22 Jul
Is there no wiki in your internet? Or are you looking for an argument?
jak123
Leader
21 Jul
Excellent article. Trump and AMLO are similar in that both are insurgents. The question for
both is whether they can make real progress within their respective political systems. The
Russia issue is a test of that. On one side is Trump, who represents a break from the
neoliberal policies of the past (even if many of his policies are neoliberal, as Lynch says),
such as hostility toward Russia, and on the other hand are elements of his government, such
as the intelligence agencies, that backed Clinton and are part of the effort to undermine
Trump because they want to topple Putin to allow the US to plunder Russia. The hysterical
overreaction to the summit. Strzok's shocking testimony to Congress and Mueller's pretend
indictments of Russians who will never stand trial represent an escalation by the elements of
Trump's government who oppose him.
No one knows how the Midas myth ends, but he dies of starvation because everything turns to gold. The the culture equates wealth
and self-worth, this is repetition of Midas myth on a new level. Like Russian oligarchs (Prokhorov is one example), or Getty in the
USA enjoying a harem of "girlfriends"
For those that haven't seen the first few episodes of British TV series about Getty, you should. There are many parables that
come to mind that include Getty Sr, his children, his kidnapped grandson, and him harem, or how I would call them Getty's female
posse.
Notable quotes:
"... The esteemed filmmaker observed how the vapid trickle-down culture of the plutocracy could be the end of us all ..."
The esteemed filmmaker observed how the vapid trickle-down culture of the plutocracy could be the end of us all
This article was co-produced with
Original
Thinkers
, an annual ideas festival in Telluride, Colorado that brings speakers, art and filmmakers together to create new
paradigms.
It is ironic that, as the
gulf between rich and poor
reaches record levels, the language of the underclass has become infected with the culture and
mores of the rich
. Twenty years ago, English began to absorb and normalize verbal markers of wealth, consumption and
status, evidenced by the mainstreaming of luxury brands like Chanel, Gucci and Louis Vuitton and their appearance in pop
culture and media. Reality TV went from nonexistent in the 1970s to one of the most popular television genres in the 2000s,
much of it homed in on the lifestyles and lives of the rich -- culminating in a billionaire,
reality-TV star
president. Social media in the late 2000s and 2010s seems to have exacerbated a cultural
normalization of
narcissism
, an obsession with self-image, and a propensity for conspicuous consumption. Few of us are rich, but we
all aspire to appear that way on Instagram.
In the past twenty-five years, documentarian and photograph Lauren Greenfield has been documenting this profound shift in
culture, as the vapid materialism of the plutocracy has trickled down to the rest of us. Greenfield, who was once named
"America's foremost visual chronicler of the plutocracy" by the New York Times, is an Emmy award-winning filmmaker and
photographer. Greenfield has experience documenting the lifestyles of the rich and (in)famous: her much-lauded 2012
documentary, "
The
Queen of Versailles
," followed the billionaire Siegel family during their quest to build the largest house in the United
States. Her unflinchingly honest depiction of their bleak existence led to patriarch David Siegel filing a lawsuit against the
filmmakers for defamation, which increased publicity to the film and which the Siegels lost handily.
Greenfield's latest opus, "
Generation
Wealth
," is an attempt to understand the intricacies of the trickle-down culture of the wealthy. Simultaneously an
exhibition,
monograph
and
film
, Greenfield's
camera follows not just the wealthy, but many folks who are middle- or working-class and yet who have absorbed the narrative
and values of the elite in their quest to be thin, forever beautiful, and image- and luxury-obsessed. The film is unflinching
in a way that is occasionally macabre: The on-screen depiction of plastic surgery is a grisly counterpoint to the pristine
resorts, lifestyles and houses of the well-heeled. "This movie is neither trickle-down treat nor bacchanal guised as bromide,
but rather an interrogation of an era defined by an obsession with wealth," wrote Eileen G'Sell in
Salon's review
.
I interviewed Lauren Greenfield at the Original Thinkers Festival in Telluride, Colorado. A video from this interview can
be viewed
here
; the print version has been condensed and edited.
Keith Spencer: "
Generation
Wealth
" is such a fascinating [book and film] project, and it's so rich. For those who may not know about it, how would
you describe the overall project? I know it took 25 years of work?
Advertisement:
Lauren Greenfield
: I started looking back at my photography since the early nineties and seeing that, in a
way, all of the stories that I had been doing -- about consumerism and body image and fame and celebrity and the economic
crisis -- that in a way they were connected. And I decided to do an archeological dig in my own work and look at the pictures
as evidence of how we had changed as a culture.
And what I came to was that they revealed a kind of fundamental shift in the American dream, that we had gone from a dream
that prized hard work and frugality and discipline, to a culture that elevated bling and celebrity and narcissism.
Interesting. And like you said, it's a global phenomenon, right? I mean, the pictures and the shots in the film
were taken are all over the planet, right?
Yeah, I started in L[os Angeles] in the nineties, but even when I was doing the work in L.A., I felt like [I] was more
looking at L.A. as the extreme manifestation of how you see the influence of the popular culture. In a way you are closest to
the flame there.
Advertisement:
But then I found that other people saw [that culture] as just L.A., so I kind of made it my mission to first go across the
country and then go to different places in the world to show how we were exporting these values -- exporting this culture with
global media, with the Internet, with social media, with branding and international branding. In "Generation Wealth," I really
tried to show this global virus that is consumerism.
And that's something that I thought was so interesting about the film, was that the goods and the brands and the
imagery look the same whether they were in Hong Kong or Moscow or Los Angeles or Orlando. It was like there's this culture
that exists everywhere. It's so interesting how something like that is transmitted everywhere, the same idea, the same
cultural values.
Yeah, I was really looking at how our culture, international culture in a way is being homogenized by these influences of
corporations and globalism and media. In my work, I'm really looking for the similarities in values and influence and behavior
in people who are really, really different.
And that really came together for me during the economic crisis. Because from L.A., from middle class to working class,
to billionaires in
Florida
... to the
crash in Dubai
, to Iceland
to
Ireland
, I was seeing similar consequences from
similar behavior.
And the interconnected financial system was one more kind of homogenizing factor. And so that's what I was really
interested in looking at. [Cultural critic] Chris Hedges speaks throughout the movie and at the end he says this comment,
which I really love, about how authentic culture is being destroyed by the values of corporate capitalism. And that it's
authentic culture that actually teaches us who we are and where we came from.
Advertisement:
And so in a way we lose our identities when we lose that. And I think we see, especially with young people, how identity is
so connected to brands and what you have and what you wear and what you buy.
Right. And that's one of the other interesting threads through the film, is just that in almost every subject's
case -- because you followed a lot of them for a long time through their lives or pick up at different points in their life --
they all seem to sort of admit that either the money itself or the things that they bought with the money never made them
happy. But yet at the same time, what I thought was so funny was some of them just seemed like they couldn't quit the
lifestyle, like especially the German hedge fund manager.
Yeah. That's exactly right. For me, I realized it was really about addiction and it wasn't about the money -- in the [film],
you see that wealth is not just money, but all the things that give you value. And so you see people searching for beauty and
youth and fame and image. But it's like addiction in the sense that you think it's going to bring you something that it
doesn't.
[In] a way, all of the subjects are kind of looking to fill a void or an emptiness that can't be filled by that
thing
. [You]
just stay on that gold plated hamster wheel... in the metaphor of addiction, the only way to stop is when you hit rock bottom.
And so we see a lot of crashes, both collective and individual in the film.
Speaking of addiction -- you ended up bringing in and talking about your own family too, both your mother and your
children. Which I was not expecting, because before I saw "Generation Wealth" I'd seen "The Queen of Versailles," which you
don't really bring yourself in that one much at all. Did you think while you were making it that you were going to end up
turning the camera around on yourself and your family?
Advertisement:
No, it kind of evolved. I started thinking I would be in it in some way as a kind of narrator, thinking mostly my voice,
not physically in it, which was really scary to me in the beginning. But I felt like I was kind of the connective tissue and
my journey was the connective tissue between these subjects.
I've always tried to go in really non-judgmentally, and show phenomena and people in situations that I think speak to the
larger culture and are part of mainstream culture and influence. So I want people to see themselves in the characters, like in
"Queen of Versailles."
And so I felt like it was also important to make the point that we're all complicit and that I'm not outside of it. And
[to] look at how I'm also affected by these influences.
And it kind of emerged organically. I was talking to Florian -- the German Hedge Fund banker -- who is a very flamboyant
character in the film. Makes $800,000,000, loses it all and becomes a truth-teller for how [money] doesn't bring you what you
think it will.
And he challenged me at a certain point, and said, "How can a hundred-hour work week not affect your relationship with
anything that matters?" And he kind of looks at me. And it forced me to kind of think about -- you know, there I was in Germany
on a three week trip on my way to Iceland, two kids at home that I'm trying to connect with on FaceTime. It made me think
about my own addiction to my work.
Advertisement:
There's this great scene in the movie where your son Gabriel talks about how his older brother got a perfect score
on the ACT and how he's just afraid that he'll never be able to live up to that and he'll never be able to go to Harvard like
his parents and brother. And it was amazing because it was like, before the camera was focused on all these rich kids -- but
they had similar anxieties to your son.
Yeah. And I think that this cycle of wanting
more
manifests in all different ways. I don't think that anybody
can say they're outside of it. It's kind of like, I always think about modernism in a way, being kind of a justifiable luxury
for [a] sophisticated or intellectual class.
And yeah... achievement was really important in my family. Gabriel also speaks to the weight and pressure of comparison,
which is really a theme of the whole movie, that we're all kind of living in the state of collective FOMO where we can never
be good enough because we're comparing ourselves to what we see not just on media but on social media. Not just real people
but fictional, curated people.
I did a lot of work on gender, and so I made a short film called "
Beauty Culture
."
And even in my book, "
Girl
Culture
," looking at how girls are comparing themselves to pictures of models that are not just genetically specific, but
also retouched and styled. And so it's literally impossible to measure up. And now I think we're all kind of in that state.
And so when Gabriel talked about comparing himself to his brother or not feeling like he could measure up, I wasn't
initially planning to have my family be in there, but I did feel an obligation [to] be willing to ask of myself what I ask of
the subjects -- a hard, intimate look into the hard issues of living.
Advertisement:
Last night at the Q&A after the film screening, you mentioned that this movie is a feminist film in the specific
way that it looks at girls and women. Can you elaborate on that? I thought it was interesting how you noted that women are
both a commodity, and also get power from commodifying themselves.
Yeah. I had done a lot of work on gender and I wasn't sure in the beginning how it would fit into "Generation Wealth." And
then I realized that, in a way, girls were a really powerful and tragic case study for how human beings are commodified, and
how in a way it's the ultimate cost and degradation of capitalism, the sale of the human being. And so for girls, I had been
looking at both how girls were sold to -- because their body image insecurities make them very vulnerable and avid consumers;
"buy this and you can fix whatever's wrong with your skin, your body," or whatever -- but also how they are physically sold.
And I think, for me, Kim Kardashian is a really powerful symbol of how that's changed. That the sex tape is a means to a
lifestyle of money and affluence, and it's not the scarlet letter anymore. It's a badge of honor if that's what you bring.
And that manifests in different ways from an innocent game of dress-up, where there's also kind of precocious
sexualization, to teenage girls putting sexy pictures of themselves on social media, to women who feel like they can't age
and [get] plastic surgery -- because if their beauty and bodies are their value, you can't lose that.
Speaking of that, that was another thing about the film I thought was interesting. From watching the trailer I had
the sense that [the film] would be focused mostly on the 1%, but actually it's about how the values and the culture that the
wealthy, the hypermaterialism and such, trickles down to the working class. I'm thinking specifically of Cathy, the bus
driver... there's the very gruesome scenes of her getting plastic surgery in Brazil, multiple times I believe if I remember
right.
Advertisement:
Well, she gets multiple surgeries on one trip to Brazil, because if you go to Brazil you can get surgery much cheaper and
the doctors will actually perform multiple operations on you in a way that they won't in the US. And yeah, I was really blown
away by a statistic about plastic surgery that I heard, where 75% of women who get plastic surgery make $50,000 or less.
Like eating disorders -- these things were thought to be kind of practices of the rich, but they have really trickled down.
And I think part of that is the way we're bombarded with images of luxury and affluence. And also the kind of, in a way, new
mythmaking of the American Dream, where the body is the new frontier of the rags to riches -- where anybody with enough money,
effort and willpower can transform themselves physically.
And so it's kind of like your fault if you don't have the drive and motivation to do that. And we see these shows, reality
shows like "The Swan" and these transformation shows... I apologize for showing such hard images, but I felt like it was
really important to
not
see the before and after that we get in the media, but to see the middle, and the violence
and risk that's really part of that transformation.
Towards the end, cultural critic Chris Hedges describes us as a civilization on the verge of collapse. But then the
movie ends on a more hopeful note. I was wondering if you share Chris Hedges' apocalyptic view of the future, or if you felt
hope at the end?
Advertisement:
I do share his view, but I have, I guess, kind of a split or duality, in the sense that I feel like the reason I did this
work and put it all together now, and went through a half a million pictures, is I do feel we're kind of barreling towards the
apocalypse if we stay on this path. It's not a sustainable path. And from what I've seen over the last 25 years, it's blown-up
exponentially.
Yet I think that there's a possibility of not staying on this path. A lot of the characters in the movie and in the book --
when they do hit rock bottom, whether it's the economic crisis or their own personal crashes -- they have insights that make
them want to change.
And I feel like, in a way, this work is about kind of showing the Matrix that we live in, and having the option of the red
pill. But I think that you kind of need a super-majority for that to happen on any significant scale.
A very good article from is considered to be a neocon publication
Notable quotes:
"... Additionally, hard-line conservatives had been hazed out of power since 1932, but had been carefully organizing and building their strength ever since. The Volcker Recession allowed them to seize the moment, finally electing one of their own to the presidency: Ronald Reagan. The three succeeding Republican terms finally cemented the idea among the Democratic elite that the party would simply have to submit to neoliberalism to be able to compete ..."
"... Effectively, both parties conspired to break the New Deal ..."
"... The spectacular late-'90s boom was, in retrospect, the first and last time the U.S. saw full employment under neoliberalism. It was followed immediately by a financial crisis and a prolonged "jobless recovery," where growth returned reasonably quickly but employment and wages lagged far behind. (Only in 2017 did the median household income finally surpass the 1999 peak -- despite the economy being 18 percent larger.) ..."
Meanwhile, New Dealers ran into political difficulties. In 1972, George McGovern
ran on a strongly left-wing platform, and got flattened by Nixon, seemingly demonstrating that
the New Deal was no longer a vote winner. Neoliberal economists were reaching the height of
academic respectability, they had a convincing story to explain the problems, and they gained
the ears of top Democratic politicians like Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter. On the advice of
Alfred Kahn, Kennedy
shepherded through airline deregulation , while Carter appointed neoliberal Paul Volcker to
chair of the Federal Reserve, where Volcker proceeded to create a terrible recession to crush
inflation. "
The standard of living of the average American has to decline ," he said.
This produced growing inequality, which turned out to be a keystone element of neoliberal
political economy. Deregulation, union-busting, abandoning anti-trust, and so forth shunted
money to the top of the income ladder -- thus providing more resources for lobbying, political
pressure groups, think tanks, and economics departments to produce yet more neoliberal
policy.
All this enabled neoliberal political operatives, who were organizing within the Democratic
Party to
push out the old New Dealers . The Democratic "
Watergate Babies " elected after Nixon's downfall were largely neoliberals, and proved
quickly to be amenable to deregulation and abandoning anti-trust.
Additionally, hard-line conservatives had been hazed out of power since 1932, but had
been carefully organizing and building their strength ever since. The Volcker Recession allowed
them to seize the moment, finally electing one of their own to the presidency: Ronald Reagan.
The three succeeding Republican terms finally cemented the idea among the Democratic elite that
the party would simply have to submit to neoliberalism to be able to compete .
Effectively, both parties conspired to break the New Deal .
For a time, it seemed that the neoliberals were right. America enjoyed reasonably good
growth under Reagan, and did even better in the late '90s under Bill Clinton, when a boom in
high-tech companies led to the first sustained period of full employment since the '70s --
without so much as a whisper of inflation. The Democratic elite's adoption of neoliberalism
seemed to be paying off -- partly, no doubt, why Clinton followed Reagan's lead on anti-trust
and passed two large packages of financial deregulation.
However, there were problems below the surface. In the New Deal days, wages had grown along
with productivity. But in the mid-'70s, the link was broken, and median wages began to
stagnate. As a result, income inequality began to increase, as economic growth flowed into
corporate profits, executive pay, and capital gains instead of to the working class.
The spectacular late-'90s boom was, in retrospect, the first and last time the
U.S. saw full employment under neoliberalism. It was followed immediately by a financial crisis
and a prolonged "jobless recovery," where growth returned reasonably quickly but employment and
wages lagged far behind. (Only in 2017 did the median household income finally surpass the 1999 peak --
despite the economy being 18 percent larger.)
Financial deregulation also dramatically increased financial sector size and instability.
Contrary to prophets of the self-regulating market, an unchained Wall Street quickly created an
escalating series of financial crises, requiring expensive government bailouts. Not even a
single decade after Clinton's last package of deregulation, the worst financial panic since
1929 struck, leading to the worst recession since the 1930s.
The Democrats swept to power in a wave election in 2008, as the economy entered free fall.
They had every opportunity to abandon neoliberalism and return to the kind of New Deal policy
that the Great Recession called for -- and they blew it.
Early on, there was a brief window where the Democrats' old thinking snuck through, leading
to the passage of the Recovery Act stimulus under President Obama. But this was only about half
the necessary size, and instead of continuing to work on unemployment, the party became
obsessed with deficits, turning to austerity by February 2010 .
With unemployment still at 10 percent during that year's midterms, the Democrats were flattened
at the polls, leading to Republican control of the House and dozens of state legislatures.
Incredibly, the Democrats responded by doubling down on neoliberalism. Over and over again
during the Obama years, the party elite proved itself overly sympathetic to the concerns of the
market.
Instead of attacking the concentrated wealth and power of big finance, Democrats took the
neoliberal route and passed a blizzard of complicated rules in the Dodd-Frank financial reform
package that attempted to reduce specific financial sector risk. Many of those provisions were
quite worthy, to be sure, but after the crisis the biggest banks are even
larger than they were before the crisis and financial sector profits quickly bounced back
to their previous levels.
The Obama administration also proved itself largely incapable of enforcing laws against
white-collar crime. Department of Justice careerists like Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer were terrified
that anything more than gentle wrist-slap fines would undermine
the stability of the financial sector . As a result, despite
massive fraud carried out
during the housing bubble and the ensuing crash , no major
bank and none of their top executives were convicted of anything.
Most damning of all, neoliberalism under Obama turned in the worst economic performance
since the 1930s . Despite the fact that the 2008 crash left obvious excess capacity, there
was no catch-up growth -- on the contrary, growth was about two-thirds the 1945-2007 average,
with no sign of speeding up on the horizon. Even 10 years after the start of the recession,
there is every sign that the economy is still depressed.
So despite the confident predictions of the Chicago School, the political economy created by
neoliberalism turned out to be identical to 1920s laissez-faire economics in every important
respect. The United States is once again a country which functions mostly on behalf of a tiny
capitalist elite. It has the same extreme inequality, the same bloated, crisis-prone financial
sector, the same corruption, and the same political backlash to the status quo and rising
extremist factions.
Now, it must be admitted that Obama is a magnificent political talent, the finest national
politician in terms of raw ability since FDR. As long as he was at the top of the party, his
sheer charisma and moderately good policy record allowed him to get re-elected -- especially
against a tone-deaf aristocrat like Mitt Romney, who had advocated that Detroit be allowed to
go bankrupt.
But Hillary Clinton,
by her own admission , is not very good at retail politics. She has neither the cool,
effortless charisma of Obama, nor the warm human touch of her husband. Worse, she is accurately
perceived as being firmly ensconced in the political and economic elite -- made worse still by
a ( partly
unfairly ) awful relationship with the press, and a lingering miasma of scandal and
corruption. But fundamentally, Clinton -- virtually handpicked by the party elite, and
promising to continue and build on the accomplishments of Obama -- was the candidate of
Democratic Party neoliberalism, for better and worse. And she lost to Donald Trump.
All this has profoundly discredited neoliberalism within the Democratic Party. The last
generation of centrist policymaking has been a giant failure. There was some partial
recognition of the problems under President Obama, and much worthy policy, but nowhere near the
fundamental economic restructuring that is clearly needed to stop the economic elite from
hoarding the fruits of growth.
Wall Street, Banks, and Angry Citizens
The Inequality Gap on a Planet Growing More Extreme
Nomi Prins
December 13, 2018
2,400 Words
16 Comments
Reply
🔊
Listen
॥
■
►
RSS
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My
Information
=>
◄
►
◄
❌
►
▲
▼
Add to Library
Remove
from Library
B
Show
Comment
Next New Comment
Next
New Reply
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More...
This Commenter
This Thread
Hide Thread
Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They
are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My
Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Email Comment
Ignore
Commenter
Follow Commenter
Bookmark
Toggle
All
ToC
▲
▼
Search Text
Case
Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
As we head into 2019, leaving the chaos
of this year behind, a major question remains unanswered when it comes to the state of Main Street, not just
here but across the planet. If the global economy really is booming, as many politicians claim, why are
leaders and their parties around the world continuing to get booted out of office in such a sweeping
fashion?
One obvious answer: the post-Great
Recession economic "recovery" was largely reserved for the few who could participate in the rising financial
markets of those years, not the majority who continued to work longer hours, sometimes at multiple jobs, to
stay afloat. In other words, the good times have left out so many people, like those struggling to keep even
a
few hundred dollars
in their bank accounts to cover an emergency or the
80%
of American workers who live paycheck to paycheck.
In today's global economy, financial
security is increasingly the property of the 1%. No surprise, then, that, as a sense of economic instability
continued to grow over the past decade, angst turned to anger, a transition that -- from the U.S. to the
Philippines, Hungary to Brazil, Poland to Mexico -- has provoked a plethora of voter upheavals. In the
process, a 1930s-style brew of rising nationalism and blaming the "other" -- whether that other was an
immigrant, a religious group, a country, or the rest of the world -- emerged.
This phenomenon offered a series of
Trumpian figures, including of course The Donald himself, an opening to ride a wave of "populism" to the
heights of the political system. That the backgrounds and records of none of them -- whether you're talking
about Donald Trump, Viktor Orbán, Rodrigo Duterte, or Jair Bolsonaro (among others) -- reflected the daily
concerns of the "common people," as the
classic definition
of populism might have it, hardly mattered. Even a billionaire could, it turned out,
exploit economic insecurity effectively and use it to rise to ultimate power.
Ironically, as that American master at
evoking the fears of apprentices everywhere showed, to assume the highest office in the land was only to
begin a process of creating yet more fear and insecurity. Trump's trade wars, for instance, have typically
infused the world with increased
anxiety
and distrust toward the U.S., even as they thwarted the ability of domestic
business
leaders and ordinary
people
to plan for the future. Meanwhile, just under the surface of the reputed good times, the
damage
to that future only intensified. In other words, the groundwork has already been laid for what
could be a frightening transformation, both domestically and globally.
That Old Financial Crisis
To understand how we got here, let's take
a step back. Only a decade ago, the world experienced a genuine global financial crisis, a meltdown of the
first order. Economic growth ended; shrinking economies threatened to collapse; countless jobs were cut;
homes were foreclosed upon and lives wrecked. For regular people, access to credit suddenly disappeared. No
wonder fears rose. No wonder for so many a brighter tomorrow ceased to exist.
The details of just why the Great
Recession happened have since been glossed over by time and partisan spin. This September, when the 10th
anniversary of the collapse of the global financial services firm Lehman Brothers came around, major
business news channels considered whether the world might be at risk of another such crisis. However,
coverage of such fears, like so many other topics, was quickly tossed aside in favor of paying yet more
attention to Donald Trump's latest tweets, complaints, insults, and lies. Why? Because such a crisis was so
2008 in a year in which, it was
claimed,
we were enjoying a first class economic high and edging toward the
longest
bull-market in Wall Street history. When it came to "boom versus gloom," boom won hands down.
None of that changed one thing, though: most people still feel
left behind
both in the U.S. and
globally
. Thanks to the massive accumulation of wealth by a 1% skilled at gaming the system, the roots
of a crisis that didn't end with the end of the Great Recession have spread
across the planet
, while the dividing line between the "have-nots" and the "have-a-lots" only sharpened
and widened.
Though the media hasn't been paying
much attention to the resulting inequality, the statistics (when you see them) on that ever-widening wealth
gap are mind-boggling. According to Inequality.org, for instance, those with at least $30 million in wealth
globally had the fastest growth rate of any group between 2016 and 2017. The size of that club rose by 25.5%
during those years, to 174,800 members. Or if you really want to grasp what's been happening, consider that,
between 2009 and 2017, the number of billionaires whose combined wealth was greater than that of the world's
poorest 50% fell from
380
to just
eight
. And by the way, despite claims by the president that every other country is screwing America, the
U.S. leads the pack when it comes to the growth of inequality. As Inequality.org
notes
, it has "much greater shares of national wealth and income going to the richest 1% than any other
country."
That, in part, is due to an institution
many in the U.S. normally pay little attention to: the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve. It helped
spark that increase in wealth disparity domestically and globally by adopting a post-crisis monetary policy
in which electronically fabricated money (via a program called quantitative easing, or QE) was offered to
banks and corporations at significantly cheaper rates than to ordinary Americans.
Pumped into financial markets, that
money sent stock prices soaring, which naturally ballooned the wealth of the small percentage of the
population that actually owned stocks.
According to
economist Stephen Roach, considering the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finances, "It is hardly a
stretch to conclude that QE exacerbated America's already severe income disparities."
Wall Street, Central Banks, and
Everyday People
What has since taken place around the
world seems right out of the 1930s. At that time, as the world was emerging from the Great Depression, a
sense of broad economic security was slow to return. Instead, fascism and other forms of nationalism only
gained steam as people turned on the usual cast of politicians, on other countries, and on each other. (If
that sounds faintly Trumpian to you, it should.)
In our post-2008 era, people have
witnessed
trillions
of dollars flowing into bank bailouts and other financial subsidies, not just from governments
but from the world's major central banks. Theoretically, private banks, as a result, would have more money
and pay less interest to get it. They would then lend that money to Main Street. Businesses, big and small,
would tap into those funds and, in turn, produce real economic growth through expansion, hiring sprees, and
wage increases. People would then have more dollars in their pockets and, feeling more financially secure,
would spend that money driving the economy to new heights -- and all, of course, would then be well.
That fairy tale was pitched around the
globe. In fact, cheap money also pushed debt to epic levels, while the share prices of banks rose, as did
those of all sorts of other firms, to record-shattering heights.
Even in the U.S., however, where a
magnificent recovery was supposed to have been in place for years, actual economic growth simply didn't
materialize at the levels promised. At
2% per year
, the average growth of the American gross domestic product over the past decade, for
instance, has been half the average of 4% before the 2008 crisis. Similar numbers were repeated throughout
the developed world and most emerging markets. In the meantime, total global debt hit
$247 trillion
in the first quarter of 2018. As the
Institute of International Finance
found, countries were, on average, borrowing about three dollars for
every dollar of goods or services created.
Global Consequences
What the Fed (along with central banks
from Europe to Japan) ignited, in fact, was a disproportionate rise in the stock and bond markets with the
money they created. That capital sought higher and faster returns than could be achieved in crucial
infrastructure or social strengthening projects like building roads, high-speed railways, hospitals, or
schools.
What followed was anything but fair. As
former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen
noted
four years ago, "It is no secret that the past few decades of widening inequality can be summed up
as significant income and wealth gains for those at the very top and stagnant living standards for the
majority." And, of course, continuing to pour money into the highest levels of the private banking system
was anything but a formula for walking that back.
Instead, as more citizens fell behind, a
sense of disenfranchisement and bitterness with existing governments only grew. In the U.S., that meant
Donald Trump. In the United Kingdom, similar discontent was reflected in the June 2016 Brexit vote to leave
the European Union (EU), which those who felt economically squeezed to death clearly meant as a
slap at
both the establishment domestically and EU leaders abroad.
Since then, multiple governments in the
European Union, too, have shifted toward the populist right. In Germany, recent elections swung both
right
and
left
just six years after, in July 2012, European Central Bank (ECB) head Mario Draghi
exuded optimism
over the ability of such banks to protect the financial system, the Euro, and generally
hold things together.
Like the Fed in the U.S., the ECB went
on to manufacture money, adding another
$3 trillion
to its books that would be deployed to buy bonds from favored countries and companies. That
artificial stimulus, too, only increased inequality within and between countries in Europe. Meanwhile,
Brexit negotiations remain ruinously divisive,
threatening
to rip Great Britain apart.
Nor was such a story the captive of the
North Atlantic. In Brazil, where left-wing president Dilma Rouseff was ousted from power in 2016, her
successor Michel Temer oversaw plummeting economic growth and escalating unemployment. That, in turn, led to
the election of that country's own Donald Trump, nationalistic far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro who won a
striking
55.2%
of the vote against a backdrop of popular discontent. In true Trumpian style, he is disposed
against both the very idea of climate change and multilateral trade agreements.
In Mexico, dissatisfied voters similarly
rejected the political known, but by swinging left for the
first time
in 70 years. New president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, popularly known by his initials AMLO,
promised to put the needs of ordinary Mexicans first. However, he has the U.S. -- and the whims of Donald
Trump and his "great wall" -- to contend with, which could hamper those efforts.
As AMLO took office on
December 1st
, the G20 summit of world leaders was unfolding in Argentina. There, amid a glittering
backdrop of power and influence, the trade war between the U.S. and the world's rising superpower, China,
came even more clearly into focus. While its president, Xi Jinping, having fully consolidated power amid a
wave of Chinese nationalism, could become his country's
longest serving
leader, he faces an international landscape that would have amazed and befuddled Mao
Zedong.
Though Trump declared his meeting with
Xi a success because the two sides agreed on a
90-day tariff truce
, his prompt
appointment
of an anti-Chinese hardliner, Robert Lighthizer, to head negotiations, a tweet in which he
referred to himself in superhero fashion as a "
Tariff
Man
," and news that the U.S. had requested that Canada arrest and extradite an executive of a key
Chinese tech company, caused the Dow to take its
fourth largest plunge
in history and then
fluctuate wildly
as economic fears of a future "Great Something" rose. More uncertainty and distrust
were the true product of that meeting.
In fact, we are now in a world whose
key leaders, especially the president of the United States, remain willfully oblivious to its long-term
problems, putting policies like deregulation, fake nationalist solutions, and profits for the already
grotesquely wealthy ahead of the future lives of the mass of citizens. Consider the
yellow-vest protests
that have broken out in France, where protestors identifying with left and right
political parties are calling for the resignation of neoliberal French President Emmanuel Macron. Many of
them, from financially starved provincial towns, are angry that their purchasing power has dropped so low
they can barely
make ends meet
.
Ultimately, what transcends geography
and geopolitics is an underlying level of economic discontent sparked by twenty-first-century economics and
a resulting Grand Canyon-sized global inequality gap that is still
widening
. Whether the protests go left or right, what continues to lie at the heart of the matter is the
way failed policies and stop-gap measures put in place around the world are no longer working, not when it
comes to the non-1% anyway. People from
Washington
to
Paris
,
London
to
Beijing
, increasingly grasp that their economic circumstances are not getting better and are not likely
to in any presently imaginable future, given those now in power.
A Dangerous Recipe
The financial crisis of 2008 initially
fostered a policy of bailing out banks with cheap money that went not into Main Street economies but into
markets enriching the few. As a result, large numbers of people increasingly felt that they were being left
behind and so turned against their leaders and sometimes each other as well.
This situation was then exploited by a
set of self-appointed politicians of the people, including a billionaire TV personality who capitalized on
an increasingly widespread fear of a future at risk. Their promises of economic prosperity were wrapped in
populist platitudes, normally (but not always) of a right-wing sort. Lost in this shift away from previously
dominant political parties and the systems that went with them was a true form of populism, which would
genuinely put the needs of the majority of people over the elite few, build real things including
infrastructure, foster organic wealth distribution, and stabilize economies above financial markets.
In the meantime, what we have is, of
course, a recipe for an increasingly unstable and vicious world.
However, coverage of such fears, like so many other topics, was quickly tossed aside in favor of
paying yet more attention to Donald Trump's latest tweets, complaints, insults, and lies.
Tossed aside by whom? The corporate media of course. Fake news. Their ONLY agenda is the ongoing
demonetization of Donald Trump.
Minus the obligatory Trump bashing this is a good piece. The beating heart of Neo Feudalism (against
which we populists/nationalists/deplorables rebel) is debt money aka the FED. So what would you have us
actually do about the banking cartel? Vote BETO? Check our privilege?
I suggest stepping back further than the GFC, to the halcyon days of Thatcher and Reagan and TINA.
That's
when we stopped investing in ourselves, which is why R&D has a 50% lower share of GDP today than then.
Encouraged by the success of this non-investment, we then stopped keeping up the infrastructure we had
built–including the great corporate labs that created our recent prosperity–and now the maintenance bill is
coming due.
Needless to say, the Chinese did the opposite and the current "China!" noise is designed to distract us
from the dreadful destiny our faux democracy created for us.
But a country deserves the government it gets and we've always liked Elmer Gantry's style of
self-confident bullshit.
I miss Mike Whitney. Where did he go? He hasn't posted anything here at Unz since June. He was just as good
as Nomi on the finance/economic topics, but we didn't have to endure the constant anti-Trump
virtue-signalling. It's a bit like being served castor oil along with your beef bourguignon: it spoils the
whole effect.
Another thing I don't like about Nomi is how she fails to make the connection between
hyper-financialization and falling median incomes in the West on the one hand, and open borders and 'free'
trade on the other. Neoliberalism could succinctly be defined as the free movement of goods, capital and
people across borders. Hence, there is nothing left-wing about hating borders–not if you by 'left-wing' you
mean
pro-workingclass
.
Remember, the Tea Party was a grassroots anti-banker movement. The media successfully convinced the rest of
America that they were all racist fascist deplorables.
Post-housing collapse, maybe, the Fed should have provided loans to Main Street merchants, unleashing more
small-business energy, especially since so few Americans are starting businesses these days. But those
loans, too, always need to be allocated to people with a reasonable chance to pay them back. The Fed gave
the dough to the banks and the zombies, but in different ways, the small-business climate in the USA is
almost as bad as the zombie-business climate.
Back in 2008, any small-business stimulus would have been
complicated by the need for small fish to compete with the Goliath of big-box chains and on-every-corner
franchise mills spawned by big corporations, which, in neither case, generate many quality, rent-covering
jobs beyond a few management positions. In many cases, the owners of franchise businesses do not make
much -- they can't pay much. And the recent attempt to stimulate small businesses via the LLC tax cut might be
diluted by the undermining of small retail by volume sellers, like Amazon & Walmart -- behemoths that sell
everything under the sun at cut rates, now speedily delivering to customers' doors.
Infrastructure spending would create long-term value and some quality, if temporary, jobs mostly for
underemployed males, one of the groups unable to just work part-time or temp jobs at low wage levels, making
up the difference between living expenses and inadequate pay with spousal income, child support checks or
multiple monthly welfare streams from .gov and a refundable child tax credit up to $6,431. Rather than
working multiple jobs, that is what many single-breadwinner parents do. They stay below the income limits
for the .gov handouts, strategically, thereby keeping wages and job quality low for many women who lack
access to unearned income streams unrelated to their employment.
College-educated Americans (and others) also face the problem of the many dual-earner parents, keeping
two of the few decent-paying jobs with benefits under one roof. These are often not two rocket-scientist
jobs, but jobs that many educated people could perform. They maintain those jobs despite tons of time off to
accommodate their personal lives, letting $10-per-hour daycare workers, NannyCam-surveilled babysitters and
never-retiring grandparents do the work of raising their kids. The middle-class job pool would expand
dramatically if they were just more interested in raising the kids they produce, but they put house size and
multiple vacations first, with the liberals among them insincerely bemoaning the fact that 30 million
Americans lack health insurance, while they are double-covered in their above-firing, family-friendly jobs.
Still, if infrastructure spending is used to build The Wall, everyone will at least be safer, welfare
expenditures will go down and fewer welfare-assisted noncitizens will chase jobs, driving wages down for
underemployed US citizens. Bridges require repair -- something that affects the safety of everyone in the
country. The electrical grid and nuclear plants need to be fortified. Something needs to be done about
cybersecurity, a type of invisible infrastructure that is more and more important.
We need US citizens to get these jobs, including the record number of working-aged US citizens out of the
laborforce. Infrastructure spending should not be used to employ the citizens of other countries, like the
1.5 to 1.7 new legal immigrants admitted into the country each year, many of whom qualify for welfare and
tax credits for US-born kids and boatloads of illegal immigrants.
The Western propaganda continues unabated. In the latest episode of #FakeNews France3 TV got caught
broadcasting a fake Yellow Vests image–photoshoped by its disinformation division–to their viewers, and then
blatantly lied about afterwards:
I fear for the Jews, both universalist Tikkun Olas like Nomi and the Zio-nationalists,
when the (((Great Ponzi))) collapses.
Haxo has to be hasbara of some sort trying to discredit Prins' article. That aside, I hope for major
correction before we see a complete collapse of the U.S. and global economy which will result in complete
social collapse. For no other reason than I live in a major East Coast city and am not prepared to forage
for food.
That's when we stopped investing in ourselves, which is why R&D has a 50% lower share of GDP today
than then.
Encouraged by the success of this non-investment, we then stopped keeping up the infrastructure we had
built–including the great corporate labs that created our recent prosperity–and now the maintenance bill
is coming due.
Is this the result of Ivy League schools pumping out more degrees in finance rather than science and
engineering, or the cause?
Including Hungary and Viktor Orban in your piece demonstrates a lack of research and a definite lack of
perspective. I discount the rest of what you babble on about as a result. Try doing some on-the-spot
research. You might learn what really is going on. Start with the hundreds of YouTube tourist blogs. Then
visit. Stop blindly regurgitating the narrow, usually distorted crap you find in the press. You may have a
point but it appears to be a house of cards. To me at least. An expat enjoying my freedoms in Hungary.l
Yeah, and what 'tomdispatch regular' Prins does is increase the sense of rage and helplessness by pointing
out the degenerative process without offering any avenue to lance the boil and treat the infection. This
only contributes to the resultant social problems she describes. Not necessarily smart.
Better had she
pointed to some means of holding those responsible accountable, example given:
I'm old, mid seventies, studied economics in the sixties.
Among the many stupid things I did or thought in my life is that economics is what is expressed by
'economics is common sense made difficult'.
Maybe I had also the completely wrong idea about common sense, looking back, and looking around me now, it
hardly seems to exist.
The figures about CO2 ppm can be explained in one sentence, yet mankind seems to be embarking on the most
expensive experiment ever, the outcome of which will, my conviction, be that the only effect is back to
barbarism, civilisation depends on cheap energy.
About financial crises, around 1880 there was a crash in
Germany, Wild West around emission of shares was ended.
In 1929 USA financial regulations were way behind German, the great crash.
The USA, with GB, is the only country in the world where the central bank is not state owned.
Therefore derivatives were not regulated, the fairy tales about absolute minimum value were believed, as
were before 1880 in Germany emission fairy tales.
We have one more problem central bank, ECB, in theory owned by the euro countries, in practice Draghi can do
what he wants, as long as he stays within his statutes.
Anyone with some insight in the world economy sees that w're heading towards a gigantic crash, who is
unable to see this can read Varoufakis.
Now how did we get into this mess ?
In my opinion quite simple: globalisation, that made the political power of the nation states disappear, EU
of course also is globalisation.
Central bankers of the world monthly meet at BIS Basle, financially, economically, in my opinion, there the
world is ruled.
What these central bankers think, I've no idea.
But that Dutch central bank director Klaas Knot does not care for Dutch interests, is more than clear.
There is one important and interesting thing about economies, economy defined as the finances of a
country, the euro zone, the USA, politicians, and bankers, even central bankers, do not control economies.
A few aspects can be controlled, but not all of them at the same time.
So inconsistent decisions lead to unwanted, and/or unforeseen consequences.
The euro is a political experiment, the object was to force euro countries to become more or less
economically the same.
It failed, southern euro countries differ economically as much now from northern as when the euro was
introduced.
The only way out for France economically now I can see is the old devaluation recipe.
Alas, 'thanks' to the euro this is no longer possible.
So that, what is erronuously called elite, has maneuvred itself into a lose lose situation, do nothing, and
France will have a second 1791, or remove the euro flag from the sinking EU ship.
In both cases, as far as I can see, end of EU.
@tac
Quite simple, more and more French are running into financial difficulties.
Most of them of course do not understand why, but they're not interested in why, as the immigrants 'we want
a better life'.
Since over ten years now, I'm retired, we live many months yearly in France.
Great country, compared to the Netherlands, more and more resembling LA.
We do not pay French income taxes, just property tax.
But the steady increase over the years of the cost of living in France we noticed quite well.
For the last two or three years it is clear to us that even our French neighbours are less affluent, our
neighbouring houses all are second homes, owned by upper middle class, of course.
Complaints about the cost of the gardener, no parties with traiteurs any more.
A traiteur is someone who prepares expensive dishes for parties etc.
French complain, even in casual conversations, a restaurant owner 'Macron is right, nobody wants to work in
France any more', someone else 'France is ill, we pay to much for social security'.
Nomi doesn't even mention the impact a million and a half legal immigrants coming in each year has had on
our supposed recovery. How can we trust what she says when she leaves out such pertinent information? In
fact we could argue the only way we were able to recover after the Great Depression is because immigration
had been cut.
Mike was possibly the
only
journalist who gave Trump a modicum of good advice when he mentioned
bumping retirees pay instead of pretending corporate tax cuts will ever "trickle down" to the workers still
on the job. Bullseye! I could use a raise.
Mike said $150 more per month would go directly for stuff retirees need, especially the ones right on the
edge. Young plumbers, roofers, electricians and so on would have tons of work to do.
Cut corporate tax, on the other hand. and the buggers only send more work to China, sluice money to
anti-worker NGOs, or sit on it all like Bill Gates.
I'd go one step further: Put a cork in the billions for Israel program and pay off all American student
loans. Further still: Tax corporations that outsource work to pay every young worker $2500 monthly till
America learns how to pay "middle class wages" again. Bezos at Amazon can get a special bill for the
millions of worker-years he's stiffed and pay them US Marshall rates, backdated to their start date with
interest.
I know, I know. Fascist economics is
so
boring. But we're near the centennial of the days when
Benito Mussolini was the most respected and successful politician in Europe if not the world.
So in 2018 chickens hatched in 2008 come home to roost.
The financial meltdown of 2008 is no longer fresh in our minds. In the wake of the 2008
crisis, to save itself from bankruptcy, the US paid leading banks in excess of $16 trillion - the
biggest bailout ever! This itself had a huge impact on the overall debt burden.
Was 2017 a bond bubble that was deflated in 2018 or it was "everything bubble" and stocks are
the next in line. The lowest S&P500 went during22008 crisis was 670 I think.
Notable quotes:
"... financial crisis poses a fundamental challenge to globalization and to the finance capitalism of the Anglo-American neoliberal model of the free market. ..."
Reinhart and Rogoff (2008) suggest that 'the present U.S. financial crisis is severe by any
metric.' Many have pointed to the systemic nature of the crisis. Gokay (2009) suggests an
analysis in terms of' the explosive growth of the financial system during the last three
decades relative to manufacturing and the economy as a whole' with the huge growth of finance
capitalism and 'the proliferation of speculative and destabilizing financial institutional
arrangements and instruments of wealth accumulation.' This has meant 'the rise of new centers
and the loss of relative weight of the U.S. as a global hegemonic power' with increasing
resource depletion and ecological crisis. He goes on to argue:
The current financial crisis (and economic downturn) has not come out of blue. It is the
outcome of deep-seated contradictions within the structure of global economic system. It is
not a 'failure' of the system, but it is central to the mode of functioning of the system
itself. It is not the result of some 'mistakes' or 'deviations,' but rather it is inherent to
the logic of the system. ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?contexr=va&and=123
)
... ... ...
The question is the nature of the systemic crisis: does it mean the end of U.S. style
capitalism? Does it mean the end of neoliberalism? Does it mean the end of capitalism
itself?
Undoubtedly, the financial and economic crisis of 2008 is a major geopolitical setback for
the United States and Europe.
Altman (2009) argues hat governments in the U.S. and Europe will turn inward to focus on
domestic recovery especially as their citizens begin to make demands, such as the 'tea-party' )
phenomenon in the U.S.
The international fiscal deficits will discourage the U.S. and Western nations from
embarking on any international initiatives in foreign policy and Western capital markets will
take several years to recover as the banks insulate themselves by becoming risk-averse.
Perhaps, most importantly 'the economic credibility of the West has been undermined by the
crisis' (p. 10)...
... ... ...
Whatever the economic advantages of progress toward the 'knowledge economy,' the 'creative
economy' and, even the 'green economy the fact is that the cur- rent financial crisis poses
a fundamental challenge to globalization and to the finance capitalism of the Anglo-American
neoliberal model of the free market. As Harold James (2009: 168) reminds us
'The response to the Asian crisis of 1997-98 was the reinforcement of the American model
of financial capitalism, the so-called Washington consensus'
and he goes on to argue
'The response to the contagion caused by the U.S. subprime crisis of 2007-8 will be the
elaboration of the Chinese model.' ...
The key problem of the USA is that neoliberalism ideology is now discredited (since 2008) and
neoliberalism as the social system clearly entered the stage of decline. Trump and Brexit
were the first Robin (as in "One robin doesn't make a spring" )
The key problem that probably will prolong the period of neoliberalism past its Shelf LIfe
Expiration Date is that the alternative to it is still unclear. and probably will not emerge
until the end of the age of "cheap oil" which might mean another 40-50 years. But the rise of
far-right nationalism is a clear indication of people in various countries started reject
neoliberal globalization (including the USA, GB and most of Europe.) Trump's "national
neoliberalism" and Brexit are just another side of the same coin.
Economic rape of Russia and post Soviet republic in 1991-2000 as well as the communication
revolution postponed the crisis of neoliberalism for a decade or so. Otherwise, it might well
start around 2000 instead of 2008. Now G7 countries that adopted neoliberalism entered the
phase of "secular stagnation" (as Summers called it) and probably will not be able to escape
for it without some war-style mobilization or military coup d'état and introduction of
command economics.
IMHO military remains one of the few realistic hopes to play the role of countervailing
force for the financial oligarchy -- which owns that state under neoliberalism, So when we
talk about the Depp State that created anti-Trump witch hunt it is not just intelligence
agencies (although they assume active political role now and strive to be the kingmakers).
This Wall street, military-industrial complex and intelligence agencies.
It will be interesting if establishment neoliberals will try to take revenge in 2020, as
they clearly do not have any viable candidate right now (Biden is a sad joke). But they
definitely can put Trump on the ropes in 2019 and sign of their intention to do so already
emerged.
BTW the key problem of Trump survival is that Trump abandoned (or was forced to abandon)
most of his key election promises to the electorate (with the only exception of tariffs for
China, I think).
In this sense Trump behaved much like Obama did with his "Change and hope" bait and switch
trick, and Nobel Peace Price. Nobel Peace Prize for the butcher of Libya and Syria, the
godfather of ISIS, is rich.
During election campaign, his message was straightforwardly anti-globalization. He
believes that the interests of the working class have been sacrificed in favor of the big
corporations that have been encouraged to invest around the world and thereby deprive
American workers of their jobs. Further, he argues that large-scale immigration has
weakened the bargaining power of American workers and served to lower their wages.
He proposes that US corporations should be required to invest their cash reserves in the
US. He believes that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has had the effect of
exporting American jobs to Mexico. On similar grounds, he is opposed to the TPP and the
TTIP. And he also accuses China of stealing American jobs, threatening to impose a 45%
tariff on Chinese imports.
To globalization, Trump counterposes economic nationalism: "Put America first". His
appeal, above all, is to the white working class who, until Trump's (and Bernie Sander's)
arrival on the political scene, had been ignored and largely unrepresented since the 1980s.
Given that their wages have been falling for most of the last 40 years, it is extraordinary
how their interests have been neglected by the political class. Increasingly, they have
voted Republican, but the Republicans have long been captured by the super-rich and Wall
Street, whose interests, as hyper-globalisers, have run directly counter to those of the
white working class. With the arrival of Trump they finally found a representative: they
won Trump the Republican nomination.
Trump believes that America's pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation's
resources
The economic nationalist argument has also been vigorously pursued by Bernie Sanders , who
ran Hillary Clinton extremely close for the Democratic nomination and would probably have
won but for more than 700 so-called super-delegates, who were effectively chosen by the
Democratic machine and overwhelmingly supported Clinton. As in the case of the Republicans,
the Democrats have long supported a neoliberal, pro-globalization strategy, notwithstanding
the concerns of its trade union base. Both the Republicans and the Democrats now find
themselves deeply polarized between the pro- and anti-globalizers, an entirely new
development not witnessed since the shift towards neoliberalism under Reagan almost 40
years ago.
Another plank of Trump's nationalist appeal – "Make America great again" –
is his position on foreign policy. He believes that America's pursuit of great power status
has squandered the nation's resources. He argues that the country's alliance system is
unfair, with America bearing most of the cost and its allies contributing far too little.
He points to Japan and South Korea, and NATO's European members as prime examples. He seeks
to rebalance these relationships and, failing that, to exit from them.
As a country in decline, he argues that America can no longer afford to carry this kind
of financial burden. Rather than putting the world to rights, he believes the money should
be invested at home, pointing to the dilapidated state of America's infrastructure. Trump's
position represents a major critique of America as the world's hegemon. His arguments mark
a radical break with the neoliberal, hyper-globalization ideology that has reigned since
the early 1980s and with the foreign policy orthodoxy of most of the postwar period. These
arguments must be taken seriously. They should not be lightly dismissed just because of
their authorship.
Roughly two-thirds of Americans agree that "we should not think so much in international
terms but concentrate more on our own national problems". And, above all else, what will
continue to drive opposition to the hyper-globalizers is inequality.
Jana Bacevic
59
2 years ago
PhD researcher at the University of Cambridge, Department of Sociology; sociology of
knowledge, social theory, political economy of knowledge production.
This is an extremely interesting and important question. In the past years, critics are
increasingly proclaiming that neoliberalism has
come to an end
, or at least become too broad or
too vague
to be used as an explanatory term.
Yet, neoliberalism has proven to be remarkably resilient. This, as
Jamie Peck
has argued, may be due to its propensity to 'fail forward', that is, perpetuate
rather than correct or reverse the mechanisms that led to its failures in the first place – the
economic/fiscal policies following the
2008 economic crisis
are a good example. Or it may have to do with what
Boltanski and Chiapello
have dubbed 'the new spirit of capitalism', meaning its capacity to
absorb political and societal challenges and subsume them under the dominant economic paradigm –
as reflected, for instance, in the way neoliberalism has managed to coopt politics of identity.
But the success of neoliberalism has arguably less to do with its performance as an economic
philosophy (at least after 2008, that is patently not the case – even IMF
has admitted
that neoliberal policies may be exacerbating inequality), and more to do with
what seems to be the consensus of political and economic elites over its application.
Neoliberalism allows for the convergence of financial, governmental, military, industrial and
technological networks of power in ways that not only make sustained resistance difficult, but
also increasingly constrain possibilities for thinking about alternatives.
This is not to say that
heterodox economic
ideas are lacking. Alternatives to mainstream (or neo-classical)
economics range from Marxist and Keynesian approaches, to post-Keynesian, participatory, or
'sharing' economies, and the philosophy of
degrowth.
Yet, in the framework of existing system of political and economic relations,
successfully implementing any of these would require a strong political initiative and at least
some level of consensus beyond the level of any single nation-state.
In this sense, the economic philosophy to succeed neoliberalism will be the one that manages
to capture the 'hearts and minds' of those in power. While the Left needs to start developing
sustainable economic alternatives, it seems that, in the short term, economic policies will be
driven either by some sort of
authoritarian populism,
(as for instance in Trump's pre-election speeches), or a new version
of neoliberalism (what
Will Davies
has called "punitive" neoliberalism). Hopefully, even from such a shrunk space,
alternatives can emerge; however, if we are to draw lessons from the
intellectual history of neoliberalism
, they will require long-term political action to
seriously challenge the prevailing economic order.
This isn very important question that i try to answer in my books. I think
regulation and taxation are key, as well as moving toward a more local circular
economy. You can download the books for free at
The median retirement account balance among all working US adults is $0 . This is true
even for the cohort closest to retirement age, those 55-64 years old.
The average (i.e., mean) near-retirement individual has less than 8% of one year's income
saved in a retirement account
77% of all American households aren't on track to have enough net worth to retire , even
under the most conservative estimates.
There a number of causal factors that have contributed to this lack of retirement
preparedness (decades of stagnant real wages, fast-rising cost of living, the Great Recession,
etc), but as we explained in our report The Great Retirement Con
, perhaps none has had more impact than the shift from dedicated-contribution pension plans to
voluntary private savings:
The Origins Of The Retirement Plan
Back during the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress promised a monthly lifetime
income to soldiers who fought and survived the conflict. This guaranteed income stream,
called a "pension", was again offered to soldiers in the Civil War and every American war
since.
Since then, similar pension promises funded from public coffers expanded to cover retirees
from other branches of government. States and cities followed suit -- extending pensions to
all sorts of municipal workers ranging from policemen to politicians, teachers to trash
collectors.
A pension is what's referred to as a defined benefit plan . The payout promised a worker
upon retirement is guaranteed up front according to a formula, typically dependent on salary
size and years of employment.
Understandably, workers appreciated the security and dependability offered by pensions.
So, as a means to attract skilled talent, the private sector started offering them, too.
The first corporate pension was offered by the American Express Company in 1875. By the
1960s, half of all employees in the private sector were covered by a pension
plan.
Off-loading Of Retirement Risk By Corporations
Once pensions had become commonplace, they were much less effective as an incentive to
lure top talent. They started to feel like burdensome cost centers to companies.
As America's corporations grew and their veteran employees started hitting retirement age,
the amount of funding required to meet current and future pension funding obligations became
huge. And it kept growing. Remember, the Baby Boomer generation, the largest ever by far in
US history, was just entering the workforce by the 1960s.
Companies were eager to get this expanding liability off of their backs. And the more
poorly-capitalized firms started defaulting on their pensions, stiffing those who had loyally
worked for them.
So, it's little surprise that the 1970s and '80s saw the introduction of personal
retirement savings plans. The Individual Retirement Arrangement (IRA) was formed by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in 1974. And the first 401k plan was created
in 1980.
These savings vehicles are defined contribution plans . The future payout of the plan is
variable (i.e., unknown today), and will be largely a function of how much of their income
the worker directs into the fund over their career, as well as the market return on the
fund's investments.
Touted as a revolutionary improvement for the worker, these plans promised to give the
individual power over his/her own financial destiny. No longer would it be dictated by their
employer.
Your company doesn't offer a pension? No worries: open an IRA and create your own personal
pension fund.
Afraid your employer might mismanage your pension fund? A 401k removes that risk. You
decide how your retirement money is invested.
Want to retire sooner? Just increase the percent of your annual income contributions.
All this sounded pretty good to workers. But it sounded GREAT to their employers.
Why? Because it transferred the burden of retirement funding away from the company and
onto its employees. It allowed for the removal of a massive and fast-growing liability off of
the corporate balance sheet, and materially improved the outlook for future earnings and cash
flow.
As you would expect given this, corporate America moved swiftly over the next several
decades to cap pension participation and transition to defined contribution plans.
The table below shows how vigorously pensions (green) have disappeared since the
introduction of IRAs and 401ks (red):
So, to recap: 40 years ago, a grand experiment was embarked upon. One that promised US
workers: Using these new defined contribution vehicles, you'll be better off when you reach
retirement age.
Which raises a simple but very important question: How have things worked out?
The
Ugly AftermathAmerica The Broke
Well, things haven't worked out too well.
Four decades later, what we're realizing is that this shift from dedicated-contribution
pension plans to voluntary private savings was a grand experiment with no assurances.
Corporations definitely benefited, as they could redeploy capital to expansion or bottom line
profits. But employees? The data certainly seems to show that the experiment did not take
human nature into account enough – specifically, the fact that just because people have
the option to save money for later use doesn't mean that they actually will.
And so we end up with the dismal retirement stats bulleted above.
The Income Haves
& Have-Nots
In our recent report The Primacy Of Income , we
summarized our years-long predictions of a coming painful market correction followed by a
prolonged era of no capital gains across equities, bond and real estate.
Simply put: the 'easy' gains made over the past 8 years as the central banks did their
utmost to inflate asset prices is over. Asset appreciation is going to be a lot harder to come
by in the future.
Which makes income now the prime source of building -- or simply just maintaining -- wealth
going forward.
That being the case, it's obvious that those receiving a pension will be in far better shape
than those who aren't. They'll have a guaranteed income stream to partially or fully fund their
retirement.
Resentment Brewing
While the total number of people expecting a pension isn't tiny, it's certainly a minority
of today's workers.
31 million private-sector, state and local government workers in the US participate in a
pension plan. 3.3 million currently-employed civilian Federal workers will receive a pension;
as will some percentage of the 2 million people serving in the active military and
reserves.
Combined, that's about 25% of current US workers; roughly 13% of total US adults.
The danger here is of festering social discord. The majority, whom we already know will not
be able to retire, will highly likely start regarding pensioners with envy and resentment.
"Hey, I worked as hard as Joe during my career. How come he gets to retire and I don't?"
will be a common narrative running in the minds of those jealous of their neighbors.
This bitterness will only increase as taxes continue to rise to fund government pension
payouts, already
a huge drain on public budgets . "Why am I paying more so Joe can relax on the beach??"
Humans are wired to react angrily to perceived injustice and unfairness. This short clip
shows how it's hard-coded into our primate brains:
So it's not a stretch at all to predict the divisive tension and prejudice that will result
from the growing gap between the pension haves and have-nots.
The negative stereotypes of union workers will be tightly re-embraced. This SNL sketch
captures a good number of them:
The steady news
reports of pension fraud and abuse will anger the majority further. Any projected decreases
in Social Security (benefit payouts will only be 79 cents on the dollar by 2035 at our current
trajectory) will only exacerbate the ire, as the small governmental income the have-nots
receive becomes even more meager.
The growing potential here is for an emerging social schism, possibly accompanied with
intimidation and violence, not dissimilar to that which has occurred along racial or religious
lines during darker eras of our history.
As people become stressed, they react emotionally, and look for a culprit to blame. And as
they become more desperate, as many elderly workers with no savings often do, they'll resort to
more desperate measures.
Broken Promises
And it's not all sunshine and roses for the pensioners, either. Being promised a pension and
actually receiving one are two very different things.
Underfunded pension liabilities are a massive ticking time bomb, certain to explode over the
next few decades.
For example, many pensions offered through multi-employer plans are bad shape. The
multiemployer branch of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the federally-instated
insurer behind private pensions, will be out of business by 2025 if no changes in law are made
to help. If that happens, retirees in those plans will get only 10% of what they were
promised.
Moreover, research conducted by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows a
$1.4 trillion shortfall between state pension assets and guarantees to employees. There are
only two ways a gap that big gets addressed: massive tax hikes or massive benefit cuts. The
likeliest outcome will be a combination of both.
So, many of those today counting on a pension tomorrow may find themselves in a similar boat
to their pension-less neighbors.
No Easy Systemic Solutions, So Act For Yourself
There's no "fix" to the retirement predicament of the American workforce. There's no policy
change that can be made at this late date to reverse the decades of over-spending,
over-indebtedness, and lack of saving.
All we can do at this time is influence how we take our licks. Do we simply leave the masses
of unprepared workers to their sad fate? Or do we share the pain across the entire populace by
funding new social support programs via more taxes?
Time will tell. But what we can bet on is tougher times ahead, especially for those with
poor income prospects.
So the smart strategy for the prudent investor is to prioritize building a portfolio of
income streams in order to have sufficient dependable income for a sustainable retirement. Or
for simply remaining afloat financially.
Sadly, accustomed to the speculative approach marketed to us for so long by the financial
industry, most investors are woefully under-educated in how to build a diversified portfolio of
passive income streams (inflation-adjusting and tax-deferred whenever possible) over time.
Those looking to get up to speed can read our recent report A
Primer On Investing For Inflation-Adjusting Income , where we detail out the wide range of
prevalent (and not-so-prevalent) solutions for today's investors to consider when designing an
income-generating portfolio. From bonds, to dividends (common and preferred), to real estate,
to royalties -- we explain each vehicle, how it can be used, and what the major benefits and
risks are.
And in the interim, make sure the wealth you have accumulated doesn't disappear along with
the bursting of the Everything Bubble. If you haven't already read it yet, read our premium
report from last week What To Do Now That 'The
Big One' Is Here .
They can try and tax to fill pension buckets that are empty, but the population is more
likely than ever to react negatively to this sort of thing.
People will not move to areas where the potential for extortion to satisfy pension
promises exists. Nor will they move to any place where there's the possibility of a big tax
increase to fill public coffers.
In my own area there's already the threat of a large property tax increase to cover
'social improvements' that are not really the responsibility of the local government, but you
can't tell them that, they extend their tentacles into everything. The county is just as bad,
with property tax increases and then handing out grants that no one monitors and no one knows
about.
If govt's would go back to doing what they're supposed to do instead of the garbage
they're involved in now we'd be better off and it would cost those who actually pay the taxes
a lot less. It's one big reason people are moving to rural areas. My muni has voted several
times now to increase local option sales tax, the people keep putting it down, the voting
costs thousands to conduct, I wish they would give it up.
It's no wonder that Chicago loses 150 people every day...not a good thing.
"The list includes a married couple -- a police captain and a detective -- who joined DROP
at around the same time and collected nearly $2 million while in the program. They both filed
claims for carpal tunnel syndrome and other cumulative ailments about halfway through the
program. She spent nearly two years on disability and sick leave; he missed more than two
years ... the couple spent at least some of their paid time off recovering at their condo in
Cabo San Lucas and starting a family theater production company with their daughter..."
Pensions in many ways they are the biggest Ponzi Scheme of modern man. Pension payouts are
often predicated on the idea the money invested in these funds will yield seven to eight
percent a year and in today's low-interest rate environment, this has forced funds into ever
riskier investments.
The PBGC America's pension safety net is already under pressure and failing due to the
inability of pension funds to meet their future obligations. The math alone is troubling but
when coupled with the overwhelming possibility of a major financial dislocation looming in
the future a nightmare scenario for pensions drastically increases. More on this subject in
the article below.
84% of state and local public sector workers receive defined benefit pensions as do 100%
of federal workers with little to no contribution on their part. After 30 years Federal
workers receive 33% of their highest 3 consecutive years pay and state workers average
benefits are $43000 with a range from 15000 (MS) to 80000 (CA). Private sector employees get
to pay for this and have little if anything coming from their employers in the form of a
pension. Instead, private sector employees get to gamble their savings in the stock and bond
markets to secure a retirement. And don't thing government employees are paid less - they are
usually paid very competitively with the private sector. Bottom line is private sector
employees are slaves to federal, state, and local governments.
Not only are government workers not paid that less, they get a slew of days off, sicks
days, mental health days , every minor holiday is a day off. And because they never get laid
off, the lower salary is worth more over the long term. then the private sector worker who
gets fired every 5 years
A 401K is not a pension plan and if you don't put anything into the 401K then you get
nothing out of the 401K. Plus, pensions can fail. The people that made no other arrangements
for their retirement other than rely on SocSec will have more because they will qual for food
stamps, housing subsidies, utility credits, etc. The picture is being distorted.
There is not going to be the old American pension, it's the new America, where everything
has been hollowed out. The new American economic conditions has created a vast
underclass.
The growing underclass is because of being hollowed out. Social services for the
underclass is costing hundreds of billions. The Trumpers want a massive cut in social
funding.
The communist Democratic Socialist have a wedge issue of underclass causes which keeps the
Democratic Socialist party growing. Clinton is their enemy as we now know from Clinton's out
burst.
The only way out for Trumpers is an infrastructure build. This will draw in the masses as
labor markets tighten, thus pushing wages up.
It is very interesting and educational to read this pre-election article two years later and see where the author is
right and where he is wrong. The death of neoliberalism was greatly exaggerated. It simply mutated in the USA into "national
neoliberalism" under Trump. As no clear alternative exists it remain the dominant ideology and universities still
brainwash students with neoclassical economics. And in way catchy slogan "Make America great again" under Trump
means "Make American working and lower middle class great again"
It is also clear that Trump betrayed or was forced to betray most of his election promises. Standrd of living of common
americans did not improve under his watch. most of hi benefits of his tax cuts went to large corporations and financial
oligarch. He continued the policy of financial deregulation, which is tantamount of playing with open fire trying to
warm up the house
What we see under Trump is tremendous growth of political role of intelligence agencies which now are real kingmakers and can
sink any candidate which does not support their agenda. And USA intelligence agencies operated in 2016 in close cooperation
with the UK intelligence agencies to the extent that it is not clear who has the lead in creating Steele dossier. They are
definitely out of control of executive branch and play their own game. We also see a rise of CIA democrats as a desperate
attempt to preserve the power of Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ('soft neoliberals" turned under Hillary into into warmongers
and neocons) . Hillary and Bill themselves clearly belong to CIA democrats too, not only to Wall Street democrats, despite the fact
that they sold Democratic Party to Wall Street in the past. New Labor in UK did the same.
But if it is more or less clear now what happened in the USa in 2016-2018, it is completely unclear what will happen next.
I think in no way neoliberalism will start to be dismantled. there is no social forces powerful enough to start this job, We
probably need another financial crisi of the scale of 2008 for this work to be reluctantly started by ruling
elite. And we better not to have this repetition of 2008 as it will be really devastating for common people.
Notable quotes:
"... the causes of this political crisis, glaringly evident on both sides of the Atlantic, are much deeper than simply the financial crisis and the virtually stillborn recovery of the last decade. They go to the heart of the neoliberal project that dates from the late 70s and the political rise of Reagan and Thatcher, and embraced at its core the idea of a global free market in goods, services and capital. The depression-era system of bank regulation was dismantled, in the US in the 1990s and in Britain in 1986, thereby creating the conditions for the 2008 crisis. Equality was scorned, the idea of trickle-down economics lauded, government condemned as a fetter on the market and duly downsized, immigration encouraged, regulation cut to a minimum, taxes reduced and a blind eye turned to corporate evasion. ..."
"... It should be noted that, by historical standards, the neoliberal era has not had a particularly good track record. The most dynamic period of postwar western growth was that between the end of the war and the early 70s, the era of welfare capitalism and Keynesianism, when the growth rate was double that of the neoliberal period from 1980 to the present. ..."
"... In the period 1948-1972, every section of the American population experienced very similar and sizable increases in their standard of living; between 1972-2013, the bottom 10% experienced falling real income while the top 10% did far better than everyone else. In the US, the median real income for full-time male workers is now lower than it was four decades ago: the income of the bottom 90% of the population has stagnated for over 30 years . ..."
"... On average, between 65-70% of households in 25 high-income economies experienced stagnant or falling real incomes between 2005 and 2014. ..."
"... As Thomas Piketty has shown, in the absence of countervailing pressures, capitalism naturally gravitates towards increasing inequality. In the period between 1945 and the late 70s, Cold War competition was arguably the biggest such constraint. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been none. As the popular backlash grows increasingly irresistible, however, such a winner-takes-all regime becomes politically unsustainable. ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... "'Populism' is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens that they don't like." Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually both. ..."
"... According to a Gallup poll, in 2000 only 33% of Americans called themselves working class; by 2015 the figure was 48%, almost half the population. ..."
"... The re-emergence of the working class as a political voice in Britain, most notably in the Brexit vote, can best be described as an inchoate expression of resentment and protest, with only a very weak sense of belonging to the labour movement. ..."
"... Economists such as Larry Summers believe that the prospect for the future is most likely one of secular stagnation . ..."
"... those who have lost out in the neoliberal era are no longer prepared to acquiesce in their fate – they are increasingly in open revolt. We are witnessing the end of the neoliberal era. It is not dead, but it is in its early death throes, just as the social-democratic era was during the 1970s. ..."
In the early 1980s the author was one of the first to herald the emerging dominance of neoliberalism in the west. Here he argues
that this doctrine is now faltering. But what happens next?
The western financial crisis of 2007-8 was the worst since 1931, yet its immediate repercussions were surprisingly modest. The
crisis challenged the foundation stones of the long-dominant neoliberal ideology but it seemed to emerge largely unscathed. The banks
were bailed out; hardly any bankers on either side of the Atlantic were prosecuted for their crimes; and the price of their behaviour
was duly paid by the taxpayer. Subsequent economic policy, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world, has relied overwhelmingly on monetary
policy, especially quantitative easing. It has failed. The western economy has stagnated and is now approaching its lost decade,
with no end in sight.
After almost nine years, we are finally beginning to reap the political whirlwind of the financial crisis. But how did neoliberalism
manage to survive virtually unscathed for so long? Although it failed the test of the real world, bequeathing the worst economic
disaster for seven decades, politically and intellectually it remained the only show in town. Parties of the right, centre and left
had all bought into its philosophy, New Labour a classic
in point. They knew no other way of thinking or doing: it had become the common sense. It was, as Antonio Gramsci put it, hegemonic.
But that hegemony cannot and will not survive the test of the real world.
The first inkling of the wider political consequences was evident in the turn in public opinion against the banks, bankers and
business leaders. For decades, they could do no wrong: they were feted as the role models of our age, the default troubleshooters
of choice in education, health and seemingly everything else. Now, though, their star was in steep descent, along with that of the
political class. The effect of the financial crisis was to undermine faith and trust in the competence of the governing elites. It
marked the beginnings of a wider political crisis.
But the causes of this political crisis, glaringly evident on both sides of the Atlantic, are much deeper than simply the financial
crisis and the virtually stillborn recovery of the last decade. They go to the heart of the neoliberal project that dates from the
late 70s and the political rise of Reagan and Thatcher, and embraced at its core the idea of a global free market in goods, services
and capital. The depression-era system of bank regulation was dismantled, in the US in the 1990s and in Britain in 1986, thereby
creating the conditions for the 2008 crisis. Equality was scorned, the idea of trickle-down economics lauded, government condemned
as a fetter on the market and duly downsized, immigration encouraged, regulation cut to a minimum, taxes reduced and a blind eye
turned to corporate evasion.
It should be noted that, by historical standards, the neoliberal era has not had a particularly good track record. The most dynamic
period of postwar western growth was that between the end of the war and the early 70s, the era of welfare capitalism and Keynesianism,
when the growth rate was double that of the neoliberal period from 1980 to the present.
But by far the most disastrous feature of the neoliberal period has been the huge growth in inequality. Until very recently, this
had been virtually ignored. With extraordinary speed, however, it has emerged as one of, if not the most important political issue
on both sides of the Atlantic, most dramatically in the US. It is, bar none, the issue that is driving the political discontent that
is now engulfing the west. Given the statistical evidence, it is puzzling, shocking even, that it has been disregarded for so long;
the explanation can only lie in the sheer extent of the hegemony of neoliberalism and its values.
But now reality has upset the doctrinal apple cart. In the period 1948-1972, every section of the American population experienced
very similar and sizable increases in their standard of living; between 1972-2013, the bottom 10% experienced falling real income
while the top 10% did far better than everyone else. In the US, the median real income for full-time male workers is now lower than
it was four decades ago: the income of the bottom 90% of the population has
stagnated for over 30 years .
A not so dissimilar picture is true of the UK. And the problem has grown more serious since the financial crisis. On average,
between 65-70% of households in 25 high-income economies experienced stagnant or falling real
incomes between 2005 and 2014.
Large sections of the population in both the US and the UK are now in revolt against their lot
The reasons are not difficult to explain. The hyper-globalisation era has been systematically stacked in favour of capital against
labour: international trading agreements, drawn up in great secrecy, with business on the inside and the unions and citizens excluded,
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the
Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) being but the latest examples; the politico-legal attack on the unions;
the encouragement of large-scale immigration in both the US and Europe that helped to undermine
the bargaining power of the domestic workforce; and the failure to retrain displaced workers in any meaningful way.
As Thomas Piketty has shown, in the absence of
countervailing pressures, capitalism naturally gravitates towards increasing inequality. In the period between 1945 and the late
70s, Cold War competition was arguably the biggest such constraint. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been none.
As the popular backlash grows increasingly irresistible, however, such a winner-takes-all regime becomes politically unsustainable.
Large sections of the population in both the US and the UK are now in revolt against their lot, as graphically illustrated by
the support for Trump and Sanders in the US and the Brexit vote in the UK. This popular revolt is often described, in a somewhat
denigratory and dismissive fashion, as populism. Or, as Francis Fukuyama writes in a recent excellent
essay
in Foreign Affairs : "'Populism' is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens
that they don't like." Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is
generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually both.
Brexit is a classic example of such populism. It has overturned a fundamental cornerstone of UK policy since the early 1970s.
Though ostensibly about Europe, it was in fact about much more: a cri de coeur from those who feel they have lost out and been left
behind, whose living standards have stagnated or worse since the 1980s, who feel dislocated by large-scale immigration over which
they have no control and who face an increasingly insecure and casualised labour market. Their revolt has paralysed the governing
elite, already claimed one prime minister, and left the latest one fumbling around in the dark looking for divine inspiration.
The wave of populism marks the return of class as a central agency in politics, both in the UK and the US. This is particularly
remarkable in the US. For many decades, the idea of the "working class" was marginal to American political discourse. Most Americans
described themselves as middle class, a reflection of the aspirational pulse at the heart of American society. According to a Gallup
poll, in 2000 only 33% of Americans called themselves working class; by 2015 the figure was 48%, almost half the population.
Brexit, too, was primarily a working-class revolt. Hitherto, on both sides of the Atlantic, the agency of class has been in retreat
in the face of the emergence of a new range of identities and issues from gender and race to sexual orientation and the environment.
The return of class, because of its sheer reach, has the potential, like no other issue, to redefine the political landscape.
The working class belongs to no one: its orientation, far from predetermined, is a function of politics
The re-emergence of class should not be confused with the labor movement. They are not synonymous: this is obvious in the US
and increasingly the case in the UK. Indeed, over the last half-century, there has been a growing separation between the two in Britain.
The re-emergence of the working class as a political voice in Britain, most notably in the Brexit vote, can best be described as
an inchoate expression of resentment and protest, with only a very weak sense of belonging to the labour movement.
Indeed, Ukip has been as important – in the form of immigration and Europe – in shaping its current attitudes as the Labour party.
In the United States, both Trump and Sanders have given expression to the working-class revolt, the latter almost as much as the
former. The working class belongs to no one: its orientation, far from predetermined, as the left liked to think, is a function of
politics.
The neoliberal era is being undermined from two directions. First, if its record of economic growth has never been particularly
strong, it is now dismal. Europe is barely larger than it was on the eve of the financial crisis in 2007; the United States has done
better but even its growth has been anaemic. Economists such as Larry Summers believe that the prospect for the future is most likely
one of secular stagnation .
Worse, because the recovery has been so weak and fragile, there is a widespread belief that another financial crisis may well
beckon. In other words, the neoliberal era has delivered the west back into the kind of crisis-ridden world that we last experienced
in the 1930s. With this background, it is hardly surprising that a majority in the west now believe their children will be worse
off than they were. Second, those who have lost out in the neoliberal era are no longer prepared to acquiesce in their fate – they
are increasingly in open revolt. We are witnessing the end of the neoliberal era. It is not dead, but it is in its early death throes,
just as the social-democratic era was during the 1970s.
A sure sign of the declining influence of neoliberalism is the rising chorus of intellectual voices raised against it. From the
mid-70s through the 80s, the economic debate was increasingly dominated by monetarists and free marketeers. But since the western
financial crisis, the centre of gravity of the intellectual debate has shifted profoundly. This is most obvious in the United States,
with economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Dani Rodrik and Jeffrey Sachs becoming increasingly influential. Thomas Piketty's
Capital in the Twenty-First Century has been a massive seller. His work and that of
Tony Atkinson
and Angus Deaton have pushed the question of the inequality to the top of the political agenda. In the UK,
Ha-Joon Chang , for long isolated within the economics
profession, has gained a following far greater than those who think economics is a branch of mathematics.
Meanwhile, some of those who were previously strong advocates of a neoliberal approach, such as Larry Summers and the Financial
Times 's Martin Wolf, have become extremely critical. The wind is in the sails of the critics of neoliberalism; the neoliberals
and monetarists are in retreat. In the UK, the media and political worlds are well behind the curve. Few recognize that we are at
the end of an era. Old attitudes and assumptions still predominate, whether on the BBC's Today programme, in the rightwing
press or the parliamentary Labor party.
Following Ed Miliband's resignation as Labour leader, virtually no one foresaw the triumph of
Jeremy Corbyn in the subsequent leadership election.
The assumption had been more of the same, a Blairite or a halfway house like Miliband, certainly not anyone like Corbyn. But the
zeitgeist had changed. The membership, especially the young who had joined the party on an unprecedented scale, wanted a complete
break with New Labour. One of the reasons why the left has failed to emerge as the leader of the new mood of working-class disillusionment
is that most social democratic parties became, in varying degrees, disciples of neoliberalism and uber-globalisation. The most extreme
forms of this phenomenon were New Labour and the Democrats, who in the late 90s and 00s became its advance guard, personified by
Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, triangulation and the third way.
But as David Marquand observed in a review for the New Statesman , what is the point of a social democratic party if
it doesn't represent the less fortunate, the underprivileged and the losers? New Labour deserted those who needed them, who historically
they were supposed to represent. Is it surprising that large sections have now deserted the party who deserted them? Blair, in his
reincarnation as a money-obsessed consultant to a shady bunch of presidents and dictators, is a fitting testament to the demise of
New Labour.
The rival contenders – Burnham, Cooper and Kendall – represented continuity. They were swept away by Corbyn, who won nearly 60%
of the votes. New Labour was over, as dead as Monty Python's parrot. Few grasped the meaning of what had happened. A Guardian
leader welcomed the surge in membership and then, lo and behold, urged support for Yvette Cooper, the very antithesis of the
reason for the enthusiasm. The PLP refused to accept the result and ever since has tried with might and main to remove Corbyn.
Just as the Labour party took far too long to come to terms with the rise of Thatcherism and the birth of a new era at the end
of the 70s, now it could not grasp that the Thatcherite paradigm, which they eventually came to embrace in the form of New Labour,
had finally run its course. Labour, like everyone else, is obliged to think anew. The membership in their antipathy to New Labour
turned to someone who had never accepted the latter, who was the polar opposite in almost every respect of Blair, and embodying an
authenticity and decency which Blair patently did not.
Labour may be in intensive care, but the condition of the Conservatives is not a great deal better
Corbyn is not a product of the new times, he is a throwback to the late 70s and early 80s. That is both his strength and also
his weakness. He is uncontaminated by the New Labour legacy because he has never accepted it. But nor, it would seem, does he understand
the nature of the new era. The danger is that he is possessed of feet of clay in what is a highly fluid and unpredictable political
environment, devoid of any certainties of almost any kind, in which Labour finds itself dangerously divided and weakened.
Labour may be in intensive care, but the condition of the Conservatives is not a great deal better. David Cameron was guilty of
a huge and irresponsible miscalculation over Brexit. He was forced to resign in the most ignominious of circumstances. The party
is hopelessly divided. It has no idea in which direction to move after Brexit. The Brexiters painted an optimistic picture of turning
away from the declining European market and embracing the expanding markets of the world, albeit barely mentioning by name which
countries it had in mind. It looks as if the new prime minister may have an anachronistic hostility towards China and a willingness
to undo the good work of George Osborne. If the government turns its back on China, by far the fastest growing market in the world,
where are they going to turn?
Brexit has left the country fragmented and deeply divided, with the very real prospect that Scotland might choose independence.
Meanwhile, the Conservatives seem to have little understanding that the neoliberal era is in its death throes.
Dramatic as events have been in the UK, they cannot compare with those in the United States. Almost from nowhere,
Donald Trump rose to capture the Republican nomination
and confound virtually all the pundits and not least his own party. His message was straightforwardly anti-globalisation. He believes
that the interests of the working class have been sacrificed in favour of the big corporations that have been encouraged to invest
around the world and thereby deprive American workers of their jobs. Further, he argues that large-scale immigration has weakened
the bargaining power of American workers and served to lower their wages.
He proposes that US corporations should be required to invest their cash reserves in the US. He believes that the North American
Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) has had the effect of exporting American jobs to Mexico. On similar grounds, he is opposed to the TPP
and the TTIP. And he also accuses China of stealing American jobs, threatening to impose a 45% tariff on Chinese imports.
To globalisation Trump counterposes economic nationalism: "Put America first". His appeal, above all, is to the white working
class who, until Trump's (and Bernie Sander's) arrival on the political scene, had been ignored and largely unrepresented since the
1980s. Given that their wages have been falling for most of the last 40 years, it is extraordinary how their interests have been
neglected by the political class. Increasingly, they have voted Republican, but the Republicans have long been captured by the super-rich
and Wall Street, whose interests, as hyper-globalisers, have run directly counter to those of the white working class. With the arrival
of Trump they finally found a representative: they won Trump the Republican nomination.
Trump believes that America's pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation's resources
The economic nationalist argument has also been vigorously pursued by
Bernie Sanders , who ran Hillary Clinton extremely
close for the Democratic nomination and would probably have won but for more than 700 so-called super-delegates, who were effectively
chosen by the Democratic machine and overwhelmingly supported Clinton. As in the case of the Republicans, the Democrats have long
supported a neoliberal, pro-globalisation strategy, notwithstanding the concerns of its trade union base. Both the Republicans and
the Democrats now find themselves deeply polarised between the pro- and anti-globalisers, an entirely new development not witnessed
since the shift towards neoliberalism under Reagan almost 40 years ago.
Another plank of Trump's nationalist appeal – "Make America great again" – is his position on foreign policy. He believes that
America's pursuit of great power status has squandered the nation's resources. He argues that the country's alliance system is unfair,
with America bearing most of the cost and its allies contributing far too little. He points to Japan and South Korea, and NATO's
European members as prime examples. He seeks to rebalance these relationships and, failing that, to exit from them.
As a country in decline, he argues that America can no longer afford to carry this kind of financial burden. Rather than putting
the world to rights, he believes the money should be invested at home, pointing to the dilapidated state of America's infrastructure.
Trump's position
represents a major critique of America as the world's hegemon. His arguments mark a radical break with the neoliberal, hyper-globalisation
ideology that has reigned since the early 1980s and with the foreign policy orthodoxy of most of the postwar period. These arguments
must be taken seriously. They should not be lightly dismissed just because of their authorship. But Trump is no man of the left.
He is a populist of the right. He has launched a racist and xenophobic attack on Muslims and on Mexicans. Trump's appeal is to a
white working class that feels it has been cheated by the big corporations, undermined by Hispanic immigration, and often resentful
towards African-Americans who for long too many have viewed as their inferior.
A Trump America would mark a descent into authoritarianism characterised by abuse, scapegoating, discrimination, racism, arbitrariness
and violence; America would become a deeply polarised and divided society. His threat to impose
45%
tariffs on China , if implemented, would certainly provoke retaliation by the Chinese and herald the beginnings of a new era
of protectionism.
Trump may well lose the presidential election just as Sanders failed in his bid for the Democrat nomination. But this does not
mean that the forces opposed to hyper-globalisation – unrestricted immigration, TPP and TTIP, the free movement of capital and much
else – will have lost the argument and are set to decline. In little more than 12 months, Trump and Sanders have transformed the
nature and terms of the argument. Far from being on the wane, the arguments of the critics of hyper-globalisation are steadily gaining
ground. Roughly two-thirds of Americans agree that "we should not think so much in international terms but concentrate more on our
own national problems". And, above all else, what will continue to drive opposition to the hyper-globalisers is inequality.
End of cheap oil is the next milestone in the development of neoliberalism. It remain to be seen if it can survive the end of
cheap oil.
Notable quotes:
"... According to a Gallup poll, in 2000 only 33% of Americans called themselves working class; by 2015 the figure was 48%, almost half the population. ..."
"... American politicians, Obama in particular, constantly talk about "the middle class" when they want to refer to the bulk of the working population, as if almost everybody were doctors, lawyers, teachers and managers. ..."
"... This situation in the USA remind me of Australia where we have a choice between two right wing parties ..."
"... austerity for the working class while the rich go untouched even to pay a fair share of taxation. It's world wide the servants of the 1% who own 50% of the world's economy. ..."
"... There is no country in the world that doesn't have a mixture of both. The mix is probably a bit strained in north Korea but those countries where private capital is supreme all have intolerable conditions for workers. The Nordic countries probably have the most enlightened approach and best living standards for the majority. Remember well the old adage: With communism man exploits man. With capitalism it's the other way round. ..."
"... one can only hope neoliberalism is dead and/or dying.... ..."
"... Trump does not truly represent the labor or economically frustrated class. He is saying things that they'd like to hear. He is a rich and pompous man who belongs to the class which benefited tremendously from neoliberalistic policies. People are so fed up with inequality, their emotions can be directed in any direction and manipulated. Anger needs a target - Mexicans, Blacks, women, Muslims, immigrants and the list expands. Trump is misleading them by speaking in their voices while enjoying the comfort of luxury that he built by exploiting those very people. ..."
Quote: According to a Gallup poll, in 2000 only 33% of Americans called themselves working
class; by 2015 the figure was 48%, almost half the population.
How strange. American politicians, Obama in particular, constantly talk about "the middle
class" when they want to refer to the bulk of the working population, as if almost everybody
were doctors, lawyers, teachers and managers. It's good therefore to know that the American
people know better than their politicians how to classify themselves.
This situation in the USA remind me of Australia where we have a choice between two right
wing parties. The LNP is extreme/ultra right wing and our Labor Party is right wing
controlled. At least in Britain you have a choice, from afar it seems that your Conservative
Party is equal to our LNP but your Labour Party seems to be a little more Left wing than our
Labor Party which is a good thing for Britain.
willpodmore your next target must be your tory government, they are doing to you what our
tory government in Australia is doing to us and if Trump gets elected the USA tory government
will do to them, austerity for the working class while the rich go untouched even to pay a
fair share of taxation. It's world wide the servants of the 1% who own 50% of the world's
economy. If you don't believe me type the 1% own 50% of Earth's economy into Dr Goggle and
see what come up.
The one thing all Left leaning people do agree on is 'fairness' and equity for all, in
economic terms it means that huge corporations pay a fair share of tax, as working people do.
Sadly Tory govts ignore the profits of corporations and fail to force them to pay a fair
share of tax. The basic problem that the neo-cons suffer from is insatiable greed where
enough is never enough, selfishness is also a trait along with lack of empathy or compassion
for their fellow mankind.
"neoliberalism" is simply unregulated capitalism as practiced by Tory governments around the
world. Labour governments usually regulate and force these huge corporations to pay a fair
share of taxation from their huge incomes. The corporations are owned by the 1% who own 50%
of the world economy and continuing to grow on a daily basis.
Yes, nothing has changed in my lifetime except the 1% now own 50% of Earth's economy. Working
people have always struggled while the rich build their mansions, both Bernie Sanders and
Jeremy Corbyn have the right idea of a fair distribution of wealth. This means these huge
corporations paying their fair share of their income in taxes to the host country so "all"
the people receive some benefit, apart from the 1%.
blaster1, the joke of the century, globalisation -- which will only increase to the benefit of
everyone eventually. You obviously have little knowledge apart from what the Tories feed you.
1% of the global population own 50% of Earth's economy and through their corporations who the
tories allow to avoid paying tax will build on that 50% how long will it eventually take the
other 99% to receive any benefit? 200,000 years?
Exploitation is high on the priority list of any Tory government, wealth should be
distributed much more fairly than it currently is. The tories only serve the rich, they have
no time or empathy for the poor. Empathy and compassion are vacant in the tory philosophy of
the world. These two components make up a psychopathic personality.
pantomimetorie yes, and England could also be if you had a government who were not merely
servants of the rich. A government interested in the fair distribution of wealth. Not a tory
government, obviously!
There's no such thing as neoliberalism, it's just capitalism and capitalism actually works,
unlike socialism.
Yes it works alright, it works for the 1% of the global population who own 50% of the global
economy, sadly it leaves in its wake an underclass of people living below the poverty line
struggling to survive. It works for the rich, but there is no mechanism in the system that
the conservative will use to force the rich to pay their fair share of taxation to the
country included in that are the multibillion pound multinational corporations who pay little
to naught in taxes also which leaves a huge swathe of the population on Struggle Street and
the sooner that democratic socialism is instituted the better off the other 99% will be.
Keep up! There is no country in the world that doesn't have a mixture of both. The mix is
probably a bit strained in north Korea but those countries where private capital is supreme
all have intolerable conditions for workers. The Nordic countries probably have the most
enlightened approach and best living standards for the majority. Remember well the old
adage:
With communism man exploits man.
With capitalism it's the other way round.
Think they call it lobbying. Companies pay professional lobby firms staffed with ex MPs or
whatever to ' meet' ministers. The PR companies make 'donations' to party funds and push for
government contracts, changes in legislation, favorable to their industry tax breaks. You
can do it of course. Write to your mp to get your local roads, parks, libraries, improved.
Don't hold your breath.
That has to be the joke of the year if not the century!!!!!!!!!!!!
The most dynamic period of postwar western growth was that between the end of the war and
the early 70s, the era of welfare capitalism and Keynesianism, when the growth rate was
double that of the neoliberal period from 1980 to the present.
It would be interesting to see those growth figures with inflation taken into account or
to average them out across the whole world and not just the West. I suspect that if the
massive growth in India, China and the rest of Asia was taken into account the growth figures
wouldn't be so bad.
Excuse me? You're the one claiming rural inhabitants "have no idea" what city life entails.
That may have been the case centuries ago, but not now. Offshoring is small potatoes in the shift of global production. It may have been big news
a decade ago. We aren't a decade ago.
"Poverty = no kids" is your myth. Human history proves otherwise. Nobody's "decimating western/westernized population for profit". Is what you're about
really more white people, fewer brown people? Just say it, this is the Guardian, we've heard
it all before.
So run your country then. But intelligently, not on the basis of twisted myth-making and
dodgy race myths that we had enough of in 1945.
The left, at least as far as I know, have not been able to build up a solid set of
ideas on which to build a political agenda nor have they sought to gain traction for their
ideas in sites of knowledge production. The neoliberals were organised and waiting when
their turn came. For me, the left have fragmented and have turned to cultural critiques and
identity politics, forgoing any kind of realistic transformative agenda.
Apologies for not answering earlier.
i) Traction in sites of knowledge production is happening certainly. Again I can point to the
article for support - Stiglitz, Ha-Joon Chang, Piketty etc did not arise to such prominence
due to an organised left-wing agenda but because events in the real world demanded an
explanation for why neoliberalism wasn't delivering its universal benison as promised, and
indeed was showing empirical signs that it might be poisonous to economic activity in certain
fundamental ways.
ii) In my view it is quite possible to support identity politics (social liberalism if you
like) and a more left wing view of economics. At present the more enthusiastic placard wavers
are seeing identity politics as more likely to produce a beneficial change, but many are
recognising that the former hegemony of neoliberalism is breaking, and the best way to really
enhance the welfare of vulnerable groups is to promote universal economic justice in some
form.
iii) You appear to want to replace one hegemonic system of thought with another. But these
are the wrong tactics for me, since we have things to do in the real world.
By all means explain some of the properties your new left hegemonic theory should have, I'd
be very interested to hear them.
But in the end the practical steps are obvious and consist of applying left wing principles
to the modern economy. An example would be privatising the natural monopoly of the
railways.
If that sounds retro, it isn't, because we've never had to deal with an economy in this
condition before. We must proceed step by step in my view. The hegemony of neoliberalism was
damaging and lasted 40 years and counting. We must be pragmatic to be successful, given what
we know about the modern economy, and proceed by finding successful strategies rather than an
abstruse new theory that ignores the messy present in favour of some pure, simple conception
of the world backed up by the PR department. As I said above, one of the critical faults of
neoliberalism is its insistence that it is the answer to everyone's prayers. That certainty
is also the seed of its destruction, because to avoid doubts it eventually has to answer
those unrealistic prayers.
Trump does not truly represent the labor or economically frustrated class. He is saying
things that they'd like to hear. He is a rich and pompous man who belongs to the class which
benefited tremendously from neoliberalistic policies. People are so fed up with inequality,
their emotions can be directed in any direction and manipulated. Anger needs a target -
Mexicans, Blacks, women, Muslims, immigrants and the list expands. Trump is misleading them
by speaking in their voices while enjoying the comfort of luxury that he built by exploiting
those very people.
Billions of Chinese and Indian have never seen a toilet in their life, so yes, they really
don't know what life in a city is. And that doesn't make them "dumb". In their domain,
farming, you don't look like a brain storm either.
Offshoring isn't a "tiny element". We are no longer self sustaining and if China slammed the
door (as they did for a brief instant on Japan), there'd be serious heartburn in the US
before transitioning.
The official western tautology is fail/fail for the public. Not enough jobs to consider
having kids? Too bad. Not enough money to raise your kids? Too bad. Due to natural events?
No, due to political gaming.
Decimating western/westernized population for profit. It's not complicated. It is you who
claim immigration is needed to leave it as it is. "Ending our ability to pay pensions by
ending immigration isn't improvement either. "
The west has no business meddling with the rest of the planet if it can't run their own
countries.
People aren't so dumb as you imagine. They really didn't know about life in the city? Every
village had its emigrant. I've no such disdain for those who made that move.
Offshoring's now a tiny element in western deindustrialisation. Your costs are too high,
you can't compete: don't blame those worse off than yourself, put your own house in order and
educate your workforce to do better than flip burgers.
"Birth control brings down reproduction rates" is a meaningless tautology. People have
been practising birth control for centuries, mainly by delaying marriage. The PRB peddles
malthusian nonsense that the past half-century has clearly discredited. I thought you were
for population growth anyway: "economies so economically unstable that population declines"?
Make your mind up.
The ridiculous boom did crash, in 2008. Maybe you missed it. I want to know how we go
forward. But people need to pay attention to what's going on outside our head too.
I correct misrepresentations of the truth such as yours.
And the problem with communism is that it suspends peoples right in favour of central
control.
Communism and socialism is a post -capitalist society, means exactly the same thing to
me as they did to Marx also.
The common ownership and democratic control by us all, of all the means and instruments
for creating and distributing wealth. 'Common' and 'social' mean the same.
Nothing to do with state ownership or corporate or private ownership.
Nothing to do with central control either . It is a post-capitalist system
which utilises the technological advances of capitalism to produce for use to satisfy human
needs, using self feeding loopback informational tools for stock measurements and control
with direct inputs at local regional and global levels to allow calculation in kind, as
opposed to the economic calculation of capitalism, only necessary to satisfy profit
taking.
The reality is that we can all choose to be rich or poor. We are free to do as we wish
(within the law).
Nonsense. If you are born poor you will most likely die poor. Poverty is both absolute
and relative.
All wealth comes from the exploited abour of the working class which creates a surplus value
above its rationed access (wages). A commonly owned society, would not have rich or poor, we
would all have free access to the commonly produced wealth, with no elite classes creaming it
off and storing it.
Other than that, mind your own damn business, if you can't deal with the arguments.
One of the biggest downsides of the rise of Corbyn and Sanders, interesting though it is, is
the oxygen it seems to be giving to several old Marxist hacks who have made a good living for
decades banging on about their discredited and blood soaked ideology, ie Jacques et al.
Recently joined by that newly hatched Marxist harpie on the block, the hipster bearded and
thoroughly poisonous Richard Seymour.
The fact is there is not and never was any such thing as "neoliberalism". What they are
really referring to is globalisation- which will only increase to the benefit of everyone
eventually. The world is shrinking ever faster and that is no bad thing. Progress, evolution,
the future, call it what you want. To try and make out that it is halting or in reverse is
plainly nonsense.
???
What I remember of Reagan,
- spent like a drunken sailor, "defense" spending, til it broke US economy
- unbounded "adjustable rate" and "balloon" mortgages, first bank bailout, bill kicked down
the road to Bush Sr., $125 billion, when it blew up
- "trickle down", wealth transfer, via having taxed public pick up the tab for not just his
defense binge spending, but also corporate welfare programs (patent office, Import/Export
bank, infrastructure, etc.)
- first soup kitchens, adults panhandling/will work for food signs that I'd ever seen
- illegal immigrant amnesty, millions
- "War On Drugs" and right after that black neighborhoods flooded with crack
Reagan and Thatcher kicking off their "gut the public of wealth" agenda.
Their story is "you're a failure". Because a) you don't work hard enough/long enough, b) hold
your household together (if you were at work all waking hours), c) don't know how to raise
decent, independent kids (whilst being at work every waking hour), d) aren't motivated to
improve your lot in life if you need to work every waking hour and e) probably need to take
stress management classes if this gets on your nerves because you personally are driving up
"our" health care costs with your irresponsible neglect of your health.
Or, as the economists tout in the papers, "Productivity is up!" Or as the oligarchical put
it, "we need immigrant work force", who'll do it for cheaper and not complain or
burden us with their need for an actual life outside of work.
Clinton is, was, and still is. despite her recent fake reversal, a staunch supporter of TPP
and other trade agreements that will further impoverish the working class. She is the
furthest thing from a populist. Case closed.
"... The American Chamber of Commerce subsequently expanded its base from around 60,000 firms in 1972 to over a quarter of a million ten years later. Jointly with the National Association of Manufacturers (which moved to Washington in 1972) it amassed an immense campaign chest to lobby Congress and engage in research. The Business Roundtable, an organization of CEOs 'committed to the aggressive pursuit of political power for the corporation', was founded in 1972 and thereafter became the centrepiece of collective pro-business action. ..."
"... Nearly half the financing for the highly respected NBER came from the leading companies in the Fortune 500 list. Closely integrated with the academic community, the NBER was to have a very significant impact on thinking in the economics departments and business schools of the major research universities. ..."
"... In order to realize this goal, businesses needed a political class instrument and a popular base. They therefore actively sought to capture the Republican Party as their own instrument. The formation of powerful political action committees to procure, as the old adage had it, 'the best government that money could buy' was an important step. ..."
"... The Republican Party needed, however, a solid electoral base if it was to colonize power effectively. It was around this time that Republicans sought an alliance with the Christian right. The latter had not been politically active in the past, but the foundation of Jerry Falwell's 'moral majority' as a political movement in 1978 changed all of that. The Republican Party now had its Christian base. ..."
"... It also appealed to the cultural nationalism of the white working classes and their besieged sense of moral righteousness. This political base could be mobilized through the positives of religion and cultural nationalism and negatively through coded, if not blatant, racism, homophobia, and anti feminism. ..."
"... The alliance between big business and conservative Christians backed by the neoconservatives consolidated, not for the first time has a social group been persuaded to vote against its material, economic, and class interests ..."
"... Any political movement that holds individual freedoms to be sacrosanct is vulnerable to incorporation into the neoliberal fold. ..."
"... Neoliberal rhetoric, with its foundational emphasis upon individual freedoms, has the power to split off libertarianism, identity politics, multiculturalism, and eventually narcissistic consumerism from the social forces ranged in pursuit of social justice through the conquest of state power. ..."
"... By capturing ideals of individual freedom and turning them against the interventionist and regulatory practices of the state, capitalist class interests could hope to protect and even restore their position. Neoliberalism was well suited to this ideological task. ..."
"... Neoliberalization required both politically and economically the construction of a neoliberal market-based populist culture of differentiated consumerism and individual libertarianism. As such it proved more than a little compatible with that cultural impulse called 'postmodernism' which had long been lurking in the wings but could now emerge full-blown as both a cultural and an intellectual dominant. This was the challenge that corporations and class elites set out to finesse in the 1980s. ..."
"... Powell argued that individual action was insufficient. 'Strength', he wrote, 'lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations'. The National Chamber of Commerce, he argued, should lead an assault upon the major institutions––universities, schools, the media, publishing, the courts––in order to change how individuals think 'about the corporation, the law, culture, and the individual'. US businesses did not lack resources for such an effort, particularly when they pooled their resources together. ..."
The American Chamber of Commerce subsequently expanded its base from around 60,000 firms in 1972 to over a quarter of a million
ten years later. Jointly with the National Association of Manufacturers (which moved to Washington in 1972) it amassed an immense
campaign chest to lobby Congress and engage in research. The Business Roundtable, an organization of CEOs 'committed to the aggressive
pursuit of political power for the corporation', was founded in 1972 and thereafter became the centrepiece of collective pro-business
action.
The corporations involved accounted for 'about one half of the GNP of the United States' during the 1970s, and they spent close
to $900 million annually (a huge amount at that time) on political matters. Think-tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, the
Hoover Institute, the Center for the Study of American Business, and the American Enterprise Institute, were formed with corporate
backing both to polemicize and, when necessary, as in the case of the National Bureau of Economic Research, to construct serious
technical and empirical studies and political-philosophical arguments broadly in support of neoliberal policies.
Nearly half the financing for the highly respected NBER came from the leading companies in the Fortune 500 list. Closely
integrated with the academic community, the NBER was to have a very significant impact on thinking in the economics departments
and business schools of the major research universities. With abundant finance furnished by wealthy individuals (such as
the brewer Joseph Coors, who later became a member of Reagan's 'kitchen cabinet') and their foundations (for example Olin, Scaife,
Smith Richardson, Pew Charitable Trust), a flood of tracts and books, with Nozick's Anarchy State and Utopia perhaps the most widely
read and appreciated, emerged espousing neoliberal values. A TV version of Milton Friedman's Free to Choose was funded with a
grant from Scaife in 1977. 'Business was', Blyth concludes, 'learning to spend as a class.
In singling out the universities for particular attention, Powell pointed up an opportunity as well as an issue, for these
were indeed centers of anti-corporate and anti-state sentiment (the students at Santa Barbara had burned down the Bank of America
building there and ceremonially buried a car in the sands). But many students were (and still are) affluent and privileged, or
at least middle class, and in the US the values of individual freedom have long been celebrated (in music and popular culture)
as primary. Neoliberal themes could here find fertile ground for propagation. Powell did not argue for extending state power.
But business should 'assiduously cultivate' the state and when necessary use it 'aggressively and with determination'
In order to realize this goal, businesses needed a political class instrument and a popular base. They therefore actively
sought to capture the Republican Party as their own instrument. The formation of powerful political action committees to procure,
as the old adage had it, 'the best government that money could buy' was an important step. The supposedly 'progressive' campaign
finance laws of 1971 in effect legalized the financial corruption of politics.
A crucial set of Supreme Court decisions began in 1976 when it was first established that the right of a corporation to make
unlimited money contributions to political parties and political action committees was protected under the First Amendment guaranteeing
the rights of individuals (in this instance corporations) to freedom of speech.15 Political action committees could thereafter
ensure the financial domination of both political parties by corporate, moneyed, and professional association interests. Corporate
PACs, which numbered eighty-nine in 1974, had burgeoned to 1,467 by 1982.
The Republican Party needed, however, a solid electoral base if it was to colonize power effectively. It was around this time
that Republicans sought an alliance with the Christian right. The latter had not been politically active in the past, but the
foundation of Jerry Falwell's 'moral majority' as a political movement in 1978 changed all of that. The Republican Party now had
its Christian base.
It also appealed to the cultural nationalism of the white working classes and their besieged sense of moral righteousness.
This political base could be mobilized through the positives of religion and cultural nationalism and negatively through coded,
if not blatant, racism, homophobia, and anti feminism.
The alliance between big business and conservative Christians backed by the neoconservatives consolidated, not for the first
time has a social group been persuaded to vote against its material, economic, and class interests the evangelical Christians
eagerly embraced the alliance with big business and the Republican Party as a means to further promote their evangelical and moral
agenda.
Any political movement that holds individual freedoms to be sacrosanct is vulnerable to incorporation into the neoliberal fold.
The worldwide political upheavals of 1968, for example, were strongly inflected with the desire for greater personal freedoms.
This was certainly true for students, such as those animated by the Berkeley 'free speech' movement of the 1960s or who took to
the streets in Paris, Berlin, and Bangkok and were so mercilessly shot down in Mexico City shortly before the 1968 Olympic Games.
They demanded freedom from parental, educational, corporate, bureaucratic, and state constraints. But the '68 movement also had
social justice as a primary political objective.
Neoliberal rhetoric, with its foundational emphasis upon individual freedoms, has the power to split off libertarianism,
identity politics, multiculturalism, and eventually narcissistic consumerism from the social forces ranged in pursuit of social
justice through the conquest of state power. It has long proved extremely difficult within the US left, for example, to forge
the collective discipline required for political action to achieve social justice without offending the the Construction of Consent
desire of political actors for individual freedom and for full recognition and expression of particular identities. Neoliberalism
did not create these distinctions, but it could easily exploit, if not foment, them.
In the early 1970s those seeking individual freedoms and social justice could make common cause in the face of what many saw
as a common enemy. Powerful corporations in alliance with an interventionist state were seen to be running the world in individually
oppressive and socially unjust ways. The Vietnam War was the most obvious catalyst for discontent, but the destructive activities
of corporations and the state in relation to the environment, the push towards mindless consumerism, the failure to address social
issues and respond adequately to diversity, as well as intense restrictions on individual possibilities and personal behaviors
by state-mandated and 'traditional' controls were also widely resented. Civil rights were an issue, and questions of sexuality
and of reproductive rights were very much in play.
For almost everyone involved in the movement of '68, the intrusive state was
the enemy and it had to be reformed. And on that, the neoliberals could easily agree. But capitalist corporations, business, and
the market system were also seen as primary enemies requiring redress if not revolutionary transformation: hence the threat to
capitalist class power.
By capturing ideals of individual freedom and turning them against the interventionist and regulatory practices of the state,
capitalist class interests could hope to protect and even restore their position. Neoliberalism was well suited to this ideological
task. But it had to be backed up by a practical strategy that emphasized the liberty of consumer choice, not only with respect
to particular products but also with respect to lifestyles, modes of expression, and a wide range of cultural practices. Neoliberalization
required both politically and economically the construction of a neoliberal market-based populist culture of differentiated consumerism
and individual libertarianism. As such it proved more than a little compatible with that cultural impulse called 'postmodernism'
which had long been lurking in the wings but could now emerge full-blown as both a cultural and an intellectual dominant. This
was the challenge that corporations and class elites set out to finesse in the 1980s.
In the US case a confidential memo sent by Lewis Powell to the US Chamber of Commerce in August 1971. Powell, about to be elevated
to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon, argued that criticism of and opposition to the US free enterprise system had gone too far
and that 'the time had come––indeed it is long overdue––for the wisdom, ingenuity and resources of American business to be marshaled
against those who would destroy it'.
Powell argued that individual action was insufficient. 'Strength', he wrote, 'lies in organization, in careful long-range
planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available
only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations'. The National
Chamber of Commerce, he argued, should lead an assault upon the major institutions––universities, schools, the media, publishing,
the courts––in order to change how individuals think 'about the corporation, the law, culture, and the individual'. US businesses
did not lack resources for such an effort, particularly when they pooled their resources together.
"... Somewhat foolishly he deepened the cleavage between himself and ordinary people by both his patrician predilections and the love of lecturing ..."
This is the question that I am often asked and will be asked in two days. So I decided to
write my answers down.
The argument why inequality should not matter is almost always couched in the following
way: if everybody is getting better-off, why should we care if somebody is becoming extremely
rich? Perhaps he deserves to be rich -- or whatever the case, even if he does not deserve, we
need not worry about his wealth. If we do that implies envy and other moral flaws. I have
dealt with the misplaced issue of envy here * (in response to points made by Martin
Feldstein) and here ** (in response to Harry Frankfurt), and do not want to repeat it. So,
let's leave envy out and focus on the reasons why we should be concerned about high
inequality.
The reasons can be formally broken down into three groups: instrumental reasons having to
do with economic growth, reasons of fairness, and reasons of politics.
The relationship between inequality and economic growth is one of the oldest relationships
studied by economists. A very strong presumption was that without high profits there will be
no growth, and high profits imply substantial inequality. We find this argument already in
Ricardo where profit is the engine of economic growth. We find it also in Keynes and
Schumpeter, and then in standard models of economic growth. We find it even in the Soviet
industrialization debates. To invest you have to have profits (that is, surplus above
subsistence); in a privately-owned economy it means that some people have to be wealthy
enough to save and invest, and in a state-directed economy, it means that the state should
take all the surplus.
But notice that throughout the argument is not one in favor of inequality as such. If it
were, we would not be concerned about the use of the surplus. The argument is about a
seemingly paradoxical behavior of the wealthy: they should be sufficiently rich but should
not use that money to live well and consume but to invest. This point is quite nicely, and
famously, made by Keynes in the opening paragraphs of his "The Economic Consequence of the
Peace". For us, it is sufficient to note that this is an argument in favor of inequality
provided wealth is not used for private pleasure.
The empirical work conducted in the past twenty years has failed to uncover a positive
relationship between inequality and growth. The data were not sufficiently good, especially
regarding inequality where the typical measure used was the Gini coefficient which is too
aggregate and inert to capture changes in the distribution; also the relationship itself may
vary in function of other variables, or the level of development. This has led economists to
a cul-de-sac and discouragement so much so that since the late 1990s and early 2000s such
empirical literature has almost ceased to be produced. It is reviewed in more detail in this
paper. ***
More recently, with much better data on income distribution, the argument that inequality
and growth are negatively correlated has gained ground. In a joint paper **** Roy van der
Weide and I show this using forty years of US micro data. With better data and somewhat more
sophisticated thinking about inequality, the argument becomes much more nuanced: inequality
may be good for future incomes of the rich (that is, they become even richer) but it may be
bad for future incomes of the poor (that is, they fall further behind). In this dynamic
framework, growth rate itself is no longer something homogeneous as indeed it is not in the
real life. When we say that the American economy is growing at 3% per year, it simply means
that the overall income increased at that rate, it tells us nothing about how much better
off, or worse off, individuals at different points of income distribution are getting.
Why would inequality have bad effect on the growth of the lower deciles of the
distribution as Roy and I find? Because it leads to low educational (and even health)
achievements among the poor who become excluded from meaningful jobs and from meaningful
contributions they could make to their own and society's improvement. Excluding a certain
group of people from good education, be it because of their insufficient income or gender or
race, can never be good for the economy, or at least it can never be preferable to their
inclusion.
High inequality which effectively debars some people from full participation translates
into an issue of fairness or justice. It does so because it affects inter-generational
mobility. People who are relatively poor (which is what high inequality means) are not able,
even if they are not poor in an absolute sense, to provide for their children a fraction of
benefits, from education and inheritance to social capital, that the rich provide to their
offspring. This implies that inequality tends to persist across generations which in turns
means that opportunities are vastly different for those at the top of the pyramid and those
on the bottom. We have the two factors joining forces here: on the one hand, the negative
effect of exclusion on growth that carries over generations (which is our instrumental reason
for not liking high inequality), and on the other, lack of equality of opportunity (which is
an issue of justice).
High inequality has also political effects. The rich have more political power and they
use that political power to promote own interests and to entrench their relative position in
the society. This means that all the negative effects due to exclusion and lack of equality
of opportunity are reinforced and made permanent (at least, until a big social earthquake
destroys them). In order to fight off the advent of such an earthquake, the rich must make
themselves safe and unassailable from "conquest". This leads to adversarial politics and
destroys social cohesion. Ironically, social instability which then results discourages
investments of the rich, that is it undermines the very action that was at the beginning
adduced as the key reason why high wealth and inequality may be socially desirable.
We therefore reach the end point where the unfolding of actions that were at the first
supposed to produce beneficent outcome destroys by its own logic the original rationale. We
have to go back to the beginning and instead of seeing high inequality as promoting
investments and growth, we begin to see it, over time, as producing exactly the opposite
effects: reducing investments and growth.
"he argument is about a seemingly paradoxical behavior of the wealthy: they should be
sufficiently rich but should not use that money to live well and consume but to invest."
I disagree on this. I do not care if they use the high income to invest or to live well,
as long as it is one or the other.
The one thing I do not want the rich to do is to become a drain of money out of active
circulation. The paradox of thrift. Excess saving by one dooms others into excess debt to
keep the economy liquid.
If you invent a new widget that everyone on earth simply must have, and is willing to give
you $1 per to get it, such that you have $7 billion a year income... good for you!
Now what do you deserve in return?
1) To consumer $7 billion worth of other peoples' production?
Or
2) To trap the rest of humanity in $7 billion a year worth of debt servitude, which will
have your income ever increase as interest is added to your income, a debt servitude from
which it will be mathematically impossible for them to escape since you hold the money that
they must get in order to repay their debts?
The choice of capitalists
to buy paper not products
Wealthy households are obscene
But not macro drags.
When they buy luxury products and personal services
When they buy existing stocks of land paintings and the like of course this is as bad as
buying paper.
But at least that portfolio shifting
Can CO exist with product purchases.
So long as each type of spending remains close to a stable ratio
In my "ideal" tax regimen, steeply progressive income taxes would be avoided by real property
spending or capital investment to get deductions.
This, of course, would lead to over-investment in land, buildings, houses, etc. WHICH is
why my regimen also includes a real property tax (in addition to state and local real estate
taxes). The income tax would not be "avoided" by real property purchases as much as
"delayed".
To avoid 90% income tax, buy diamonds, paintings, expensive autos... then only pay 5% per
year on the real property, spreading the the tax over 20 years. Buy land, buildings, houses,
etc., get hit with the 5%, plus the local real estate taxes.
It really depends on what is consumed. Consumption can lead to malinvestment. For instance,
buying 1960s ferraris does very little for the current economy. This is an exceptionally low
multiplier activity.
inequality have bad effect on the growth of the lower deciles of the distribution as Roy and
I
"
~~BM~
keep in mind that there are many directions of growth. there is growth that benefits the
workers, the rank-and-file. there is growth that benefits the excessively wealthy. but now,
finally there's a third type of growth, the kind of growth that destroys the planet, and
perhaps a 4th a new channel of growth that would help us to preserve the planet. we need to
think about some of these things.
One VERY important item is missing from that list - environmental sustainability - giving
people control over much more resources than they need is a waste of something precious.
Ted Turner owning millions of acres of land he's restoring to prairie sustained by bison,
prairie dogs, wolves, etc is bad?
I wish he had ten times as much land. Or more so a million bison were roaming the west and
supplying lots of bison steaks, hides, etc, as they did for thousands of years before about
1850.
First reflections on the French "événements de décembre"
Because I am suffering from insomnia (due to the jetlag) I decided to write down, in the
middle of the night, my two quick impressions regarding the recent events in France -- events
that watched from outside France seemed less dramatic than within.
I think they raise two important issues: one new, another "old".
It is indeed an accident that the straw that broke the camel's back was a tax on fuel that
affected especially hard rural and periurban areas, and people with relatively modest
incomes. It did so (I understand) not as much by the amount of the increase but by
reinforcing the feeling among many that after already paying the costs of globalization,
neoliberal policies, offshoring, competition with cheaper foreign labor, and deterioration of
social services, now, in addition, they are to pay also what is, in their view and perhaps
not entirely wrongly, seen as an elitist tax on climate change.
This raises a more general issue which I discussed in my polemic with Jason Hickel and
Kate Raworth. Proponents of degrowth and those who argue that we need to do something
dramatic regarding climate change are singularly coy and shy when it comes to pointing out
who is going to bear the costs of these changes. As I mentioned in this discussion with Jason
and Kate, if they were serious they should go out and tell Western audiences that their real
incomes should be cut in half and also explain them how that should be accomplished.
Degrowers obviously know that such a plan is a political suicide, so they prefer to keep
things vague and to cover up the issues under a "false communitarian" discourse that we are
all affected and that somehow the economy will thrive if we all just took full conscience of
the problem--without ever telling us what specific taxes they would like to raise or how they
plan to reduce people's incomes.
Now the French revolt brings this issue into the open. Many western middle classes,
buffeted already by the winds of globalization, seem unwilling to pay a climate change tax.
The degrowers should, I hope, now come up with concrete plans.
The second issue is "old". It is the issue of the cleavage between the political elites
and a significant part of the population. Macron rose on an essentially anti-mainstream
platform, his heterogenous party having been created barely before the elections. But his
policies have from the beginning been pro-rich, a sort of the latter-say Thatcherism. In
addition, they were very elitist, often disdainful of the public opinion. It is somewhat
bizarre that such "Jupiterian" presidency, by his own admission, would be lionized by the
liberal English-language press when his domestic policies were strongly pro-rich and thus not
dissimilar from Trump's. But because Macron's international rhetoric (mostly rhetoric) was
anti-Trumpist, he got a pass on his domestic policies.
Somewhat foolishly he deepened the cleavage between himself and ordinary people by both
his patrician predilections and the love of lecturing others which at times veered into the
absurd (as when he took several minutes to teach a 12-year old kid about the proper way to
address the President). At the time when more than ever Western "couches populaires" wanted
to have politicians that at least showed a modicum of empathy, Macron chose the very opposite
tack of berating people for their lack of success or failure to find jobs (for which they
apparently just needed to cross the road). He thus committed the same error that Hillary
Clinton commuted with her "deplorables" comment. It is no surprise that his approval ratings
have taken a dive, and, from what I understand, even they do not fully capture the extent of
the disdain into which he is held by many.
It is under such conditions that "les evenements" took place. The danger however is that
their further radicalization, and especially violence, undermines their original objectives.
One remembers that May 1968, after driving de Gaulle to run for cover to Baden-Baden, just a
few months later handed him one of the largest electoral victories -- because of
demonstrators' violence and mishandling of that great political opportunity.
"So, harvesting energy from the sun is unsustainable?"
No. I'm saying it is not scale-able.
How are you going to do it? Run diesel fuel powered tractors to dig pit mines to get
metals, to be smelted in fossil fuel powered refineries. Burn fossil fuels to heat sand into
glass. Use toxic solvents purify the glass and to electroplate toxic metals. Then incinerate
the solvents in fossil fuel powered furnaces.
That may get us to a 40% reduction in carbon, but it isn't getting us to 90%
reduction.
Even then, how are you going to get nitrogen fertilizers for farms? Currently we strip H2
from CH4 (natural gas), then mix with nitrogen in the air, apply electricity, poof, nitrogen
fertilizers, and LOTS of CO2. I have yet to see a proposal for large-scale farming that
offers a method of obtaining nitrogen fertilizers without CO2 emissions.
AND, there is still a massive problem of storing the electricity from when the wind is
blowing and sun is shining until times when it isn't.
"So, you are calling for global thermonuclears war to purge 6 billion people from the
planet?"
Nope.
"You clearly believe the solution is not paying workers to work, but to not pay them so
they must die."
I'm all about paying workers to work. I vehemently disagree with liberals when they breach
the idea of "universal basic income"... a great way to end up like the old Soviet Union,
where everyone has money, but waits in long lines to get into stores with nothing on the
shelves for sale.
"The population is too high to support hunter-gathers and subsistence farming for 7
billion people plus."
Correct.
"You have bought into Reagan's free lunch framing and argue less trash, less processing of
6trash to cut costs, so everyone must earn less so they consume less, ideally becoming
dead."
Not even close.
This is where Liberals pissed me off right after Trump won and was still talking "border
adjustment tax". The cry from the likes of Robert Reich was "oh noooo... prices will go up
and hurt the poor." Since when were progressives the "we need low prices" party? I thought we
were the ones that wanted higher prices, if those higher prices were caused by higher wages
to workers!
"I call for evveryone paying high living costs to pay more workers to eliminate the waste of
landfilling what was just mined from the land."
Not sure how that makes it magically possible to cut carbon emissions 90% though.
During the last decades of Soviet power, the importance of Communist ideology' was
frequently
overrated abroad. Only after the downfall of the regime did it become clear that
Marxism-Leninism
was no longer taken seriously; lip service was still paid to it, but it became the subject of
ridicule
among those at the very' top.
Is there a danger that a similar misapprehension may prevail now that political views once
found only' at the periphery' of the political system have moved to its center?
... ... ....
... In the 1980s, a strange situation had arisen: The KGB spent much of its time harassing
and persecuting the dissidents, but they believed as little in communism and the Soviet system
as their victims. They did what they did because they had been given orders from above. What is
known about their real convictions? Deep down many of them were probably cynics, willing
apparently' to serve any' system as long as it preserved their privileged positions. What of
the current situation? How important is ideology', and what is the specific weight of power and
money'?
... ... ...
In its cultural history, Russia went through a golden and a silver age, but now there are
few prospects even for a bronze age. One feels reminded of Pushkin's reaction having finished
listening to Nikolai Gogol reading to him Dead Souls: "God, what a sad country, our
Russia."
"... The unquenchable quest for high income on the part of the upper classes must be halted. ..."
"... They maintain it is a mistake to isolate it merely in the context of the financial innovation and deregulation occurring from the late 1990s. Instead, capitalism has particular historical tendencies and specific class relations. ..."
"... However, because politics and social class alliances can change, so can the profitability. The current crisis was not caused by falling rates of profits, but by financial innovation, credit overextension, and the particular social class alliances facilitating these activities. ..."
Neoliberalism is a new stage of capitalism that emerged in the wake of the
structural crisis of the 1970s. It expresses the strategy of the capitalist classes
in alliance with upper management, specifically financial managers, in-
tending to strengthen their hegemony and to expand it globally. As of 2004,
when our book Capital Resurgent: Roots of the Neoliberal Revolution was
published by Harvard University Press, this strategy appeared successful,
based on its own objectives, the income and wealth of a privileged minority,
and the dominance of a country. The contemporary crisis is an outcome
of the contradictions inherent in that strategy. The crisis revealed the
strategy's unsustainable character, leading to what can be denoted as the
"crisis of neoliberalism." Neoliberal trends ultimately unsettled the foundations
of the economy of the "secure base" of the upper classes -- the capability of the United States
to grow, maintain the leadership of its financial institutions worldwide, and ensure the dominance of its currency
-- a class and imperial strategy that resulted in a stalemate.
A New Social Order-A Multipolar World
The crisis of neoliberalism is the fourth structural crisis in capitalism since
the late nineteenth century. Each of these earthquakes introduced the establishment
of a new social order and deeply altered international relations. The
contemporary crisis marks the beginning of a similar process of transition.
Not only is financial regulation involved, but a new corporate governance,
the rebuilding of the financial sector, and new policies are now required. The
basic tenets and practices of neoliberal globalization will be questioned, and
production has to be "re-territorialized" in the United States to a significant
extent. Accordingly, countries such as China, India, or Brazil will become
gradually less dependent on their relationship to the United States. It will be,
in particular, quite difficult to correct for the macro trajectory of declining
trends of accumulation and cumulative disequilibria of the U.S. economy
once the present Great Contraction is stopped.
In any event, the new world order will be more multipolar than at present. Further, if such changes are not realized successfully in
the United States, the decline of U.S. international hegemony could be sharp. None of the urgently required tasks in the coming
decades to slow down the comparative decline of the U.S. economy can be realized under the same class leadership and unchecked
globalizing trends. The unquenchable quest for high income on the part of the upper classes must be halted. Much will
depend on the pressure exerted by the popular classes and the peoples of the world, but the "national factor," that is, the national
commitment in favor of the preservation of U.S. preeminence worldwide, could play a crucial role. The necessary adjustment can be realized in the context of a new
social arrangement to the Right or to the Left, although, as of the last months
of 2009, the chances of a Left alternative appear slim.
It is important to understand that the contemporary crisis is only the
initial step in a longer process of rectification. How long this process will
last depends on the severity of the crisis, and national and international
political strife. The capability of the U.S. upper classes to perform the much
needed adjustment and the willingness of China to соllaborate will be
crucial factors. A crisis of the dollar could precipitate a sequence of events
that would alter the basic features of the process.
Two very distinct categories of phenomena are involved in the analysis of the contemporary crisis: the historical dynamics of
capitalism, on the one hand, and financial and macro mechanisms, on the other hand. The interpretation of the crisis lies at the
intersection of these two sets of processes, and the difficulty is to do justice to both and account for their reciprocal
relationships.
Neoliberalism should be understood as a new phase in the evolution of capitalism. As such, it can be described
intrinsically-its basic mechanisms and contradictions. The reference to a m ost recent phase raises, however, the issue of
previous phases. The comparison with earlier periods reveals the traits proper to the new period. The analysis of the social,
political, and economic trends that led to the establishment of neoliberalism is also telling of the nature and fate of this
social order. Symmetrically, the notion of a crisis of neoliberalism implies a possible transition to a new phase, and the
nature of the society that will prevail in the wake of the contemporary crisis is a major component of the investigation here.
... ... ...
A central thesis in Capital Resurgent: Roots of the Neoliberal Revolution
is that the overall dynamics of capitalism under neoliberalism,
both nationally and internationally, were determined by new class
objectives that worked to the benefit of the highest income brackets,
capitalist owners, and the upper fractions of management. The greater
concentration of income in favor of a privileged minority was a crucial
achievement of the new social order. Income statement data make this
apparent. In this respect, a social order is also a power configuration,
and implicit in this latter notion is "class" power. National accounting
frameworks add to this observation that a large and increasing fraction
of U.S. capital income comes from outside of the United States. Not only
class relations are involved, but also imperial hierarchies, a permanent
feature of capitalism.
The new configuration of income distribution was the outcome of
various converging trends. Strong pressure was placed on the mass of
salaried workers, which helped restore profit rates from their low levels
of the 1970s or, at least, to put an end to their downward trend. The opening
of trade and capital frontiers paved the way to large investments in
the regions of the world where prevailing social conditions allowed for
high returns, thus generating income flows in favor of the U.S. upper
classes (and broader groups that benefit to some extent by capital income).
Free trade increased the pressure on workers, the effect of the
competition emanating from countries where labor costs are low. Large
capital income flows also derived from the growing indebtedness of households
and the government. Extreme degrees of sophistication and expansion
of financial mechanisms were reached after 2000, allowing for
tremendous incomes in the financial sector and in rich households. The
crisis, finally, revealed that a significant fraction of these flows of income
were based on dubious profits, due to a n increasing overvaluation of
securities.
Besides the comparative interests of social classes, the leading position
of the United States, economically, politically, and militarily, must also
be considered. The political conditions underlying the dominance of the
United States in the decades preceding the crisis are well known. Two
major factors are the fall of the Soviet Union and the weakness of Europe
as a political entity. Neoliberalism corrected for the earlier decline of
the leadership of the United States in the 1970s, at least vis-a-vis Europe
and Japan. The U.S. economy is still the largest in the world in terms of
gross domestic product (GDP), with a leadership in fields as important
as research and innovation, both in production and financial mecha-
nisms. As a consequence, the dollar is acknowledged as the international
currency.
The international neoliberal order -- known as neoliberal globalization --
was imposed throughout the world, from the main capitalist countries of
the center to the less developed countries of the periphery, often at the cost
of severe crises as in Asia and Latin America during the 1990s and after
2000. As in any stage of imperialism, the major instruments of these international
power relations, beyond straightforward economic violence, are
corruption, subversion, and war. The main political tool is always the establishment
of a local imperial-friendly government. The collaboration of the
elites of the dominated country is crucial, as well as, in contemporary capitalism,
the action of international institutions such as the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the
World Bank (WB), and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Economically, the purpose
of this domination is the extraction of a "surplus" through
the imposition of low prices of natural resources and investment abroad, be
it portfolio or foreign direct investment. That countries of the periphery
want to sell their natural resources and are eager to receive foreign invest-
ment does not change the nature of the relations of domination, just as
when, within a given country, workers want to sell their labor power, the
ultimate source of profit.
The same notion, hegemony, is used here to refer to both class hierarchi-
cal relationships, as in neoliberalism, and imperialism internationally. No
distinction is made between hegemony and domination as in approaches of
Gramscian inspiration. The notion emphasizes a common aspect within
class and international mechanisms. In each instance, a class or country
leads a process of domination in which various agents are involved. In
neoliberalism, the upper fractions of capitalist classes, supported by finan-
cial institutions, act as leaders within the broader group of upper classes in
the exercise of their common domination. Similarly, the United States acts
as leader within the broader group of imperialist countries.
... ... ..
..the upper classes, to the Right. A shift would occur within the compara-
tive interests of these classes.
b. It is hard to imagine that such a far-reaching transformation would
be accomplished without significant support from the popular classes. A
degree of concession to the popular classes might be necessary. Consequently,
a political orientation to the Center Right could be expected.
3. Diversification in the rest of the world. Such a new strategy of strengthening
of the U.S. domestic economy would have important consequences for countries
of the periphery profoundly engaged in the neoliberal international
division of labor. But, in the long run, such trends open opportunities
toward the establishment of national development models as was the case
after the Great Depression (as in import-substitution industrialization in
Latin America), the much needed alternative to neoliberal globalization.
Independent of the path followed by the United States, the situation will
differ significantly around the globe. An increased diversity will be observed
in the establishment of new social orders more or less to the Right
or to the Left. Europe is not committed to international hegemony as is the
United States, and the European Union is politically unable to pursue such
an ambitious strategy. Europe might-paradoxically, given its history -- become the traditional
neoliberal stronghold in the coming decades.
It is still unclear whether social democratic trends in a few countries of Latin America
will open new avenues to social progress. The crucial factor
will be the impact of the contemporary crisis on China. Either, having suecessfully
superseded the consequences of the crisis, China will experience
strengthened neoliberal trends as if nothing had happened, or the experience
of the crisis, in China itself or in the rest of the world, will work in
favor of a "third way" along the contemporary pattern of the mixed economy
that prevails in China.
Even if new social arrangements are successfully established in the
United States, it is hard to imagine that U.S. hegemony will be preserved.
There will be no clear substitute to an impaired U.S. dominance, and a
multipolar configuration, around regional leaders, will gradually prevail
in the coming decades. A bipolar world, Atlantic and Asian, is a possible
outcome. Abstracting from rising international confrontation if conflicting
interests cannot be superseded, the optimistic scenario is that new international
hierarchies will be expressed within international institutions
to which the task of global governance would be slowly transferred.
This
new environment would be favorable to the international diversification of
social orders around the globe. This would mean a sharp break with the
logic of neoliberal globalization, with a potential for developing countries
depending, as in the case of the popular classes concerning domestic social
orders, on what these countries would be able to impose.
This book can be highly recommended as a book on the Great Financial
Crisis of 2008, and a book of politics, political economy, class analysis,
sociology, and history. Very impressive accomplishment.
The strength of this book on the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 is that
Dumenil and Levy place the crisis in a larger historical perspective.
They maintain it is a mistake to isolate it merely in the context of
the financial innovation and deregulation occurring from the late 1990s.
Instead, capitalism has particular historical tendencies and specific class
relations.
This is a very impressive volume published by Harvard University Press.
It offers a play by play of the Great Financial Recession of 2008, beginning
from 2000 in chapters 12 - 17, the political response and the continued
stagnation in domestic economies and instability within the international
economic order in chapters 18 - 20, along with very interesting historical
policy observations and recommendations for this current crisis in chapters
21 - 25. Nonetheless the real power of this book occurs in its historical
analysis of capitalist development since 1970s described in great detail
in chapters 1 - 11.
According to Dumenil and Levy the historical
tendencies of capitalism are radically mediated by politics and social class
configurations (i.e. alliances). They argue capitalistic
development, since 1880s, has gone through four primary stages and corresponding
crises. They emphasize these developments are not historically necessary,
but contingent on politics and social class configurations. Moreover, their
analysis is particular to the capitalistic development in the United States
and Western Europe, they are able to generalize or internationalize their
analysis because of the U.S. global hegemony (although they certainly accept
there are modes of resisting this hegemony (e.g. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba,
China, etc.).
Dumenil and Levy have demonstrated in previous work the tendency of the
rate of profit to fall in capitalistic economies. However, because politics
and social class alliances can change, so can the profitability. The current
crisis was not caused by falling rates of profits, but by financial innovation,
credit overextension, and the particular social class alliances facilitating
these activities. There is no single cause of the crisis, but broader
social political mechanisms at work and in the process of transformation.
The basic story goes like this: following the Great Depression of 1930
a strong social political alliance emerged between
the management class and "popular classes" (this popular
class includes blue and white collar workers, including quasi-management,
clerical, and professional, which cannot be reduced to the traditional "working-class").
In the 1970s there was a severe profitability crisis, the legislative and
institutional response to this crisis caused a fracture between management
and popular classes, and a re-alliance between
management and capitalist classes (which includes ownership and financial
classes).
Once the alliance between capitalist classes and management had been
forged in late 1970s and 1980s, profitability returned and financial incentives
and financial innovation reconfigured personal incentives and corporate
motivations. Most important according to Dumenil and Levy is that these
historical transformations manifested a "divorce" between ownership/finance
and the domestic economy and its actual production process. The political
system did nothing to reconcile this disconnect, indeed expedited the divorce
via deregulation and financial innovation, what the economic literature
calls "financialization" (although, to repeat in several countries the response
was radically different and in specific opposition to U.S. hegemony and
the neo-liberalism which the U.S. Treasury, IMF, World Bank, and WTO exported
to the rest of the world).
"... The term is used as a catchall for anything that smacks of deregulation, liberalisation, privatisation or fiscal austerity. Today it is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas and practices that have produced growing economic insecurity and inequality, led to the loss of our political values and ideals, and even precipitated our current populist backlash ..."
"... The use of the term "neoliberal" exploded in the 1990s, when it became closely associated with two developments, neither of which Peters's article had mentioned. One of these was financial deregulation, which would culminate in the 2008 financial crash and in the still-lingering euro debacle . The second was economic globalisation, which accelerated thanks to free flows of finance and to a new, more ambitious type of trade agreement. Financialisation and globalisation have become the most overt manifestations of neoliberalism in today's world. ..."
"... That neoliberalism is a slippery, shifting concept, with no explicit lobby of defenders, does not mean that it is irrelevant or unreal. ..."
"... homo economicus ..."
"... A version of this article first appeared in Boston Review ..."
"... Main illustration by Eleanor Shakespeare ..."
As even its harshest critics concede, neoliberalism is hard to pin down. In broad terms, it denotes a preference for markets over
government, economic incentives over cultural norms, and private entrepreneurship over collective action. It has been used to describe
a wide range of phenomena – from Augusto Pinochet to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, from the Clinton Democrats and the UK's
New Labour to the economic opening in China and the reform of the welfare state in Sweden.
The term is used as a catchall for anything that smacks of deregulation, liberalisation, privatisation or fiscal austerity.
Today it is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas and practices that have produced growing economic insecurity and inequality,
led to the loss of our political values and ideals, and even precipitated our current populist backlash .
We live in the age of neoliberalism, apparently. But who are neoliberalism's adherents and disseminators – the neoliberals themselves?
Oddly, you have to go back a long time to find anyone explicitly embracing neoliberalism. In 1982, Charles Peters, the longtime editor
of the political magazine Washington Monthly, published an essay titled
A Neo-Liberal's Manifesto . It makes for interesting reading 35 years later, since the neoliberalism it describes bears little
resemblance to today's target of derision. The politicians Peters names as exemplifying the movement are not the likes of Thatcher
and Reagan, but rather liberals – in the US sense of the word – who have become disillusioned with unions and big government and
dropped their prejudices against markets and the military.
The use of the term "neoliberal" exploded in the 1990s, when it became closely associated with two developments, neither of
which Peters's article had mentioned. One of these was financial deregulation, which would culminate in the 2008
financial
crash and in the still-lingering euro debacle
. The second was economic globalisation, which accelerated thanks to free flows of finance and to a new, more ambitious type of trade
agreement. Financialisation and globalisation have become the most overt manifestations of neoliberalism in today's world.
That neoliberalism is a slippery, shifting concept, with no explicit lobby of defenders, does not mean that it is irrelevant
or unreal. Who can deny that the world has experienced a decisive shift toward markets from the 1980s on? Or that centre-left
politicians – Democrats in the US, socialists and social democrats in Europe – enthusiastically adopted some of the central creeds
of Thatcherism and Reaganism, such as deregulation, privatisation, financial liberalisation and individual enterprise? Much of our
contemporary policy discussion remains infused with principles supposedly grounded in the concept of
homo economicus
, the perfectly rational human being, found in many economic theories, who always pursues his own self-interest.
But the looseness of the term neoliberalism also means that criticism of it often misses the mark. There is nothing wrong with
markets, private entrepreneurship or incentives – when deployed appropriately. Their creative use lies behind the most significant
economic achievements of our time. As we heap scorn on neoliberalism, we risk throwing out some of neoliberalism's useful ideas.
The real trouble is that mainstream economics shades too easily into ideology, constraining the choices that we appear to have
and providing cookie-cutter solutions. A proper understanding of the economics that lie behind neoliberalism would allow us to identify
– and to reject – ideology when it masquerades as economic science. Most importantly, it would help us to develop the institutional
imagination we badly need to redesign capitalism for the 21st century.
N eoliberalism is typically understood as being based on key tenets of mainstream economic science. To see those tenets without
the ideology, consider this thought experiment. A well-known and highly regarded economist lands in a country he has never visited
and knows nothing about. He is brought to a meeting with the country's leading policymakers. "Our country is in trouble," they tell
him. "The economy is stagnant, investment is low, and there is no growth in sight." They turn to him expectantly: "Please tell us
what we should do to make our economy grow."
The economist pleads ignorance and explains that he knows too little about the country to make any recommendations. He would need
to study the history of the economy, to analyse the statistics, and to travel around the country before he could say anything.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest Tony Blair and Bill Clinton: centre-left politicians who enthusiastically adopted some of the central creeds of Thatcherism
and Reaganism. Photograph: Reuters
But his hosts are insistent. "We understand your reticence, and we wish you had the time for all that," they tell him. "But isn't
economics a science, and aren't you one of its most distinguished practitioners? Even though you do not know much about our economy,
surely there are some general theories and prescriptions you can share with us to guide our economic policies and reforms."
The economist is now in a bind. He does not want to emulate those economic gurus he has long criticised for peddling their favourite
policy advice. But he feels challenged by the question. Are there universal truths in economics? Can he say anything valid or useful?
So he begins. The efficiency with which an economy's resources are allocated is a critical determinant of the economy's performance,
he says. Efficiency, in turn, requires aligning the incentives of households and businesses with social costs and benefits. The incentives
faced by entrepreneurs, investors and producers are particularly important when it comes to economic growth. Growth needs a system
of property rights and contract enforcement that will ensure those who invest can retain the returns on their investments. And the
economy must be open to ideas and innovations from the rest of the world.
But economies can be derailed by macroeconomic instability, he goes on. Governments must therefore pursue a sound
monetary policy , which means restricting the growth of liquidity to the increase in nominal money demand at reasonable inflation.
They must ensure fiscal sustainability, so that the increase in public debt does not outpace national income. And they must carry
out prudential regulation of banks and other financial institutions to prevent the financial system from taking excessive risk.
Now he is warming to his task. Economics is not just about efficiency and growth, he adds. Economic principles also carry over
to equity and social policy. Economics has little to
say about how much redistribution a society should seek. But it does tell us that the tax base should be as broad as possible, and
that social programmes should be designed in a way that does not encourage workers to drop out of the labour market.
By the time the economist stops, it appears as if he has laid out a fully fledged neoliberal agenda. A critic in the audience
will have heard all the code words: efficiency, incentives, property rights, sound money, fiscal prudence. And yet the universal
principles that the economist describes are in fact quite open-ended. They presume a capitalist economy – one in which investment
decisions are made by private individuals and firms – but not much beyond that. They allow for – indeed, they require – a surprising
variety of institutional arrangements.
So has the economist just delivered a neoliberal screed? We would be mistaken to think so, and our mistake would consist of associating
each abstract term – incentives, property rights, sound money – with a particular institutional counterpart. And therein lies the
central conceit, and the fatal flaw, of neoliberalism: the belief that first-order economic principles map on to a unique set of
policies, approximated by a Thatcher/Reagan-style agenda.
Consider property rights. They matter insofar as they allocate returns on investments. An optimal system would distribute property
rights to those who would make the best use of an asset, and afford protection against those most likely to expropriate the returns.
Property rights are good when they protect innovators from free riders, but they are bad when they protect them from competition.
Depending on the context, a legal regime that provides the appropriate incentives can look quite different from the standard US-style
regime of private property rights.
This may seem like a semantic point with little practical import; but China's phenomenal economic success is largely due to its
orthodoxy-defying institutional tinkering. China turned to markets, but did not copy western practices in property rights. Its reforms
produced market-based incentives through a series of unusual institutional arrangements that were better adapted to the local context.
Rather than move directly from state to private ownership, for example, which would have been stymied by the weakness of the prevailing
legal structures, the country relied on mixed forms of ownership that provided more effective property rights for entrepreneurs in
practice. Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs), which spearheaded Chinese economic growth during the 1980s, were collectives owned
and controlled by local governments. Even though TVEs were publicly owned, entrepreneurs received the protection they needed against
expropriation. Local governments had a direct stake in the profits of the firms, and hence did not want to kill the goose that lays
the golden eggs.
China relied on a range of such innovations, each delivering the economist's higher-order economic principles in unfamiliar institutional
arrangements. For instance, it shielded its large state sector from global competition, establishing special economic zones where
foreign firms could operate with different rules than in the rest of the economy. In view of such departures from orthodox blueprints,
describing China's economic reforms as neoliberal – as critics are inclined to do – distorts more than it reveals. If we are to call
this neoliberalism, we must surely look more kindly on the ideas behind the most dramatic
poverty reduction in history.
One might protest that China's institutional innovations were purely transitional. Perhaps it will have to converge on western-style
institutions to sustain its economic progress. But this common line of thinking overlooks the diversity of capitalist arrangements
that still prevails among advanced economies, despite the considerable homogenisation of our policy discourse.
What, after all, are western institutions? The size of the public sector in OECD countries varies, from a third of the economy
in Korea to nearly 60% in Finland. In Iceland, 86% of workers are members of a trade union; the comparable number in Switzerland
is just 16%. In the US, firms can fire workers almost at will;
French
labour laws have historically required employers to jump through many hoops first. Stock markets have grown to a total value
of nearly one-and-a-half times GDP in the US; in Germany, they are only a third as large, equivalent to just 50% of GDP.
The idea that any one of these models of taxation, labour relations or financial organisation is inherently superior to the others
is belied by the varying economic fortunes that each of these economies have experienced over recent decades. The US has gone through
successive periods of angst in which its economic institutions were judged inferior to those in Germany, Japan, China, and now possibly
Germany again. Certainly, comparable levels of wealth and productivity can be produced under very different models of capitalism.
We might even go a step further: today's prevailing models probably come nowhere near exhausting the range of what might be possible,
and desirable, in the future.
The visiting economist in our thought experiment knows all this, and recognises that the principles he has enunciated need to
be filled in with institutional detail before they become operational. Property rights? Yes, but how? Sound money? Of course, but
how? It would perhaps be easier to criticise his list of principles for being vacuous than to denounce it as a neoliberal screed.
Still, these principles are not entirely content-free. China, and indeed all countries that managed to develop rapidly, demonstrate
the utility of those principles once they are properly adapted to local context. Conversely, too many economies have been driven
to ruin courtesy of political leaders who chose to violate them. We need look no further than
Latin American populists or eastern European communist regimes to appreciate the practical significance of sound money, fiscal
sustainability and private incentives.
O f course, economics goes beyond a list of abstract, largely common-sense principles. Much of the work of economists consists
of developing
stylised models of how economies work and then confronting those models with evidence. Economists tend to think of what they
do as progressively refining their understanding of the world: their models are supposed to get better and better as they are tested
and revised over time. But progress in economics happens differently.
Economists study a social reality that is unlike the physical universe. It is completely manmade, highly malleable and operates
according to different rules across time and space. Economics
advances not by settling on the right model or theory to answer such questions, but by improving our understanding of the diversity
of causal relationships. Neoliberalism and its customary remedies – always more markets, always less government – are in fact a perversion
of mainstream economics. Good economists know that the correct answer to any question in economics is: it depends.
Does an increase in the minimum wage depress employment? Yes, if the labour market is really competitive and employers have no
control over the wage they must pay to attract workers; but not necessarily otherwise. Does trade liberalisation increase economic
growth? Yes, if it increases the profitability of industries where the bulk of investment and innovation takes place; but not otherwise.
Does more government spending increase employment? Yes, if there is slack in the economy and wages do not rise; but not otherwise.
Does monopoly harm innovation? Yes and no, depending on a whole host of market circumstances.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest 'Today [neoliberalism] is routinely reviled as a shorthand for the ideas that have produced growing economic inequality
and precipitated our current populist backlash' Trump signing an order to take the US out of the TPP trade pact. Photograph: AFP/Getty
In economics, new models rarely supplant older models. The basic competitive-markets model dating back to Adam Smith has been
modified over time by the inclusion, in rough historical order, of monopoly, externalities, scale economies, incomplete and asymmetric
information, irrational behaviour and many other real-world features. But the older models remain as useful as ever. Understanding
how real markets operate necessitates using different lenses at different times.
Perhaps maps offer the best analogy. Just like economic models, maps are
highly stylised representations
of reality . They are useful precisely because they abstract from many real-world details that would get in the way. But abstraction
also implies that we need a different map depending on the nature of our journey. If we are travelling by bike, we need a map of
bike trails. If we are to go on foot, we need a map of footpaths. If a new subway is constructed, we will need a subway map – but
we wouldn't throw out the older maps.
Economists tend to be very good at making maps, but not good enough at choosing the one most suited to the task at hand. When
confronted with policy questions of the type our visiting economist faces, too many of them resort to "benchmark" models that favour
the
laissez-faire
approach. Kneejerk solutions and hubris replace the richness and humility of the discussion in the seminar room. John Maynard
Keynes once defined economics as the "science of thinking in terms of models, joined to the art of choosing models which are relevant".
Economists typically have trouble with the "art" part.
This, too, can be illustrated with a parable. A journalist calls an economics professor for his view on whether free trade is
a good idea. The professor responds enthusiastically in the affirmative. The journalist then goes undercover as a student in the
professor's advanced graduate seminar on international trade. He poses the same question: is free trade good? This time the professor
is stymied. "What do you mean by 'good'?" he responds. "And good for whom?" The professor then launches into an extensive exegesis
that will ultimately culminate in a heavily hedged statement: "So if the long list of conditions I have just described are satisfied,
and assuming we can tax the beneficiaries to compensate the losers, freer trade has the potential to increase everyone's wellbeing."
If he is in an expansive mood, the professor might add that the effect of free trade on an economy's longterm growth rate is not
clear either, and would depend on an altogether different set of requirements.
This professor is rather different from the one the journalist encountered previously. On the record, he exudes self-confidence,
not reticence, about the appropriate policy. There is one and only one model, at least as far as the public conversation is concerned,
and there is a single correct answer, regardless of context. Strangely, the professor deems the knowledge that he imparts to his
advanced students to be inappropriate (or dangerous) for the general public. Why?
The roots of such behaviour lie deep in the culture of the economics profession. But one important motive is the zeal to display
the profession's crown jewels – market efficiency, the invisible hand, comparative advantage – in untarnished form, and to shield
them from attack by self-interested barbarians, namely
the protectionists . Unfortunately, these economists typically ignore the barbarians on the other side of the issue – financiers
and multinational corporations whose motives are no purer and who are all too ready to hijack these ideas for their own benefit.
As a result, economists' contributions to public debate are often biased in one direction, in favour of more trade, more finance
and less government. That is why economists have developed a reputation as cheerleaders for neoliberalism, even if mainstream economics
is very far from a paean to laissez-faire. The economists who let their enthusiasm for free markets run wild are in fact not being
true to their own discipline.
H ow then should we think about globalisation in order to liberate it from the grip of neoliberal practices? We must begin by
understanding the positive potential of global markets. Access to world markets in goods, technologies and capital has played an
important role in virtually all of the economic miracles of our time. China is the most recent and powerful reminder of this historical
truth, but it is not the only case. Before China, similar miracles were performed by South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and a few non-Asian
countries such as
Mauritius . All of these countries embraced globalisation rather than turn their backs on it, and they benefited handsomely.
Defenders of the existing economic order will quickly point to these examples when globalisation comes into question. What they
will fail to say is that almost all of these countries joined the world economy by violating neoliberal strictures. South Korea and
Taiwan, for instance, heavily subsidised their exporters, the former through the financial system and the latter through tax incentives.
All of them eventually removed most of their import restrictions, long after economic growth had taken off.
But none, with the sole exception of Chile in the 1980s under Pinochet, followed the neoliberal recommendation of a rapid opening-up
to imports. Chile's neoliberal
experiment eventually produced the worst economic crisis in all of Latin America. While the details differ across countries,
in all cases governments played an active role in restructuring the economy and buffering it against a volatile external environment.
Industrial policies, restrictions on capital flows and currency controls – all prohibited in the neoliberal playbook – were rampant.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest Protest against Nafta in Mexico City in 2008: since the reforms of the mid-90s, the country's economy has underperformed.
Photograph: EPA
By contrast, countries that stuck closest to the neoliberal model of globalisation were sorely disappointed. Mexico provides a
particularly sad example. Following a series of macroeconomic crises in the mid-1990s, Mexico embraced macroeconomic orthodoxy, extensively
liberalised its economy, freed up the financial system, sharply reduced import restrictions and signed the North American Free Trade
Agreement (Nafta). These policies did produce macroeconomic stability and a significant rise in foreign trade and internal investment.
But where it counts – in overall productivity and economic growth –
the experiment failed
. Since undertaking the reforms, overall productivity in Mexico has stagnated, and the economy has underperformed even by the
undemanding standards of Latin America.
These outcomes are not a surprise from the perspective of sound economics. They are yet another manifestation of the need for
economic policies to be attuned to the failures to which markets are prone, and to be tailored to the specific circumstances of each
country. No single blueprint fits all.
A s Peters's 1982 manifesto attests, the meaning of neoliberalism has changed considerably over time as the label has acquired
harder-line connotations with respect to deregulation, financialisation and globalisation. But there is one thread that connects
all versions of neoliberalism, and that is the
emphasis
on economic growth . Peters wrote in 1982 that the emphasis was warranted because growth is essential to all our social and political
ends – community, democracy, prosperity. Entrepreneurship, private investment and removing obstacles that stand in the way (such
as excessive regulation) were all instruments for achieving economic growth. If a similar neoliberal manifesto were penned today,
it would no doubt make the same point.
ss="rich-link"> Globalisation: the rise and fall of an idea that swept the world Read more
Critics often point out that this emphasis on economics debases and sacrifices other important values such as equality, social
inclusion, democratic deliberation and justice. Those political and social objectives obviously matter enormously, and in some contexts
they matter the most. They cannot always, or even often, be achieved by means of technocratic economic policies; politics must play
a central role.
Still, neoliberals are not wrong when they argue that our most cherished ideals are more likely to be attained when our economy
is vibrant, strong and growing. Where they are wrong is in believing that there is a unique and universal recipe for improving economic
performance, to which they have access. The fatal flaw of neoliberalism is that it does not even get the economics right. It must
be rejected on its own terms for the simple reason that it is bad economics.
A version of this article first appeared in
Boston Review
Nationalisation of essential services is required to put this country back on an even keel.
It was a stupid idea by governments (of all persuasions) to sell off monopoly essential
service assets. The neoliberal experiment has failed.
Beware: Just build a HUGE worker owned, democratically run (by workers) sector to compete
against privately owned concerns. If workers are (democratically) involved in running and
managing their own workplaces that will give plenty of competition for private concerns.
Workers will be involved in the 'politics' and economics of their local area as part of work.
They'll have more control over the technologies they want to use, how much profit they want
to make or not, wages, investment, working conditions and all aspects of their concern.
Workers would 'participate' more and be more involved in thinking about larger concerns. This
would make a nation/region more democratic on the 'ground'. Not just reliant on
'representative' democracy/voting. You'd still need over-arching government(s) but people
would have more direct control over their livelihoods and work conditions. Such a BIG sector
would give (I'm talking about Health, Education, manufacturing etc - not 'bread shop',
basket-weaving coops/social enterprises) private enterprise some REAL competition on prices
and services. It would deliver democracy to masses of people, some control over wealth
generation/economy and on a large enough scale CHANGE society in terms of social justice and
politics.
You don't need to go to State control or Private control of 'the economy'. Just the right
kinds of structures.
Neoliberalism is like a cancer on a health democracy. If we'd treated it in its early
magnifications (when the Librerals and far right old version of Labor), first started selling
off public assets (that are then charged back to citizens to use at increasing price rates
etc), we would have been fine.
But now the cancer is deep in democracy's lymph glads ( in many of our public services)
and so needs radical prolonged treatment and some surgery to assure the country's thriving
democracy survives.
First surgically remove the source: cease (vote out always) all right wing conservative
nutters from ever gaining power, or media mogul influence of government. Most but not all
hide in the Coalition.
Then, begin the reconstruction surgery to re-assert public assets and services. This is a
temporary but life saving cost.
Then, monitor and manage, (educate) the citizens about this scourge on democracy.
The death of neoliberalism means we can finally have a national debate about the size
and role of government, and the shape of the economy and society we want to build.
Neoliberalism is far from dead Richard - neoliberalism is deeply entrenched in mainstream
thinking its corporate enriching magic works insidiously - mostly subliminally under cover of
'sensible' free market self clearing 'orthodox' economics.
You and many others from 'progressive' TAI almost daily, unwittingly play a role in
reinforcing and entrenching neoliberal ideology in the community by framing macroeconomic
analysis/commentary in neoliberal terms.
Your oft repeated call for 'budget balance' over the business cycle is such an example. Only
fiscal deficits can build a prosperous productive nation in the absence of consistent
external surpluses - no government can ever build and expand a nation without permanently
injecting more funds into the non government sector than (through taxation etc) it
withdraws.
Both our major parties of government espouse neoliberal economic orthodoxy as if there is
no alternative - and no one calls them out - not even the quasi progressive TAI.
DSGE based 'orthodox' economics provides the lifeblood to neoliberalism - the myth of tax
collections funding expenditure provides plausible cover to constrain spending on
citizen/social services - but when it comes to war/corporate subsidy spending, such
constraints are immediately abandoned.
Hetereodox MMT exposes the lie of such DSGE myths - but faithful Ptolemaic 'progressives'
refuse to investigate or debate such Copernican macroeconomic sacrilege.
The recent TAI 'outlook' economic conference (proudly sponsored by 'The Australian'!! )
was a classic progressive 'fail'; loaded with orthodox 'experts' like Bowen and Keating
spouting austerity inducing neoliberal orthodoxy - not one heterodox economist was invited to
present the unwelcome, uncomfortable truth of sovereign nation macroeconomic reality.
Prof Bill Mitchell is Australia's most widely & internationally respected REAL
progressive heterodox academic - yet the TAI ignores him.
Neoliberalism won't die until it extracts the last breath of available wealth from
Australia's citizenry. It will die a savage death with the onset of the impending depression
'to end all depressions' when the collapsing housing bubble leaves citizens with a 'decades
long' bubble of unpayable private debt.
Only then will people realise they have been elaborately 'conned' - too late.
P.S. For all TRUE progressives:
Some brilliant short videos here
and here by Parody Project.
That's really the point, much as you might expect government like the Howard and Abbott ones
to have stuck to their claimed neo-liberal principles, neither substantially altered the
compulsory nature of the scheme, despite the fact that it ran more or less completely
contrary to Chicago School principles. Howard might have been fond of shouting "socialism" or
"nanny state" when he felt the need to criticise something, but deeds speak stronger than
words, and for all his p!ssing and moaning he was never going to do anything that stopped all
those truckloads of money finding their way to his friends in the banking industry.
Yes historically high mass immigration in Australia has been used as a trojan horse by the
adherents of neo-liberalism - to break down the pay and conditions of Australian workers and
their rights and entitlements.
By importing "ready made" skilled workers, neither the Government or the private sector have
had to go to the trouble of training their workforce nor bear any of the costs of educating
and training them.
As to the lower skilled imported workers, in the main, this is a crude device to cut out the
locals so that accepted or legislated pay and conditions can be lowered. Most of those
imported workers don't know their rights and are ripe for exploitation.
The shonks, rip off and quick buck merchants love neo-liberalism for the what it has done to
the Australian labour market.
And the Labor party has been complicit in all this - when it should have been protecting
Australians and Australian workers present and future from the ravaging impacts of
neo-liberalism.
For something that's supposedly dead, it still looks like neoliberalism is in charge to me.
The relentless commodification of every aspect of life continues apace. Money is still the
measure of everything and takes precedence over the environment, ethics, community,
creativity, discovery, and virtually everything else you care to name. When water thiefs, big
bankers, corrupt politicians, environmental despoilers, and those that start pointless wars
are IN GAOL, then I'll start to believe things are changing.
Neoliberalism is not simply an economic agenda. From the beginning it was conceived as and
then constructed to be much more than that - it was in fact as much a pedagogical cum
psychological operation to change minds across generations with regard to free-market
capitalism and thus to orient all thinking to that, than it was a matter of simple monetary
or trade policy. Of course, this had to be done with a good deal of repression and oppression
backing it up, here and there - Chile e.g. Thus electing neoliberalism is an effect of this
pedagogy over time - we are all schooled in its 'normality - and not a reflection of either
some natural desire for it or an educated choice.
I agree that we should be discussing fiscal policy but I suspect that Richard Denniss is
using a false frame for this topic. He probably adheres to the claim made by the
macroeconomic equivalent of pre-Copernican physics that a government that issues its own
currency, enforces taxes in that currency, and allows the currency to float in foreign
exchange markets can run out of its currency.
The fiscal policy of the federal government should be to employ all available labour in
socially useful and environmental sustainable productive activity, maintain price stability,
minimize inequality of income and wealth, and fund public services and infrastructure to the
maximum extent permitted by the resources that are available for sale in the government's
currency.
If you think that the government's fiscal policy should be to reduce a fiscal deficit or
deliver a fiscal surplus, you are a dill.
It makes no sense to target a particular fiscal balance because the outcome is driven
largely by the aggregated spending and saving decisions of the domestic non-government sector
and the external sector. The federal government does not control those variables.
The federal government needs to target economically, socially, and environmentally
desirable goals and allow the fiscal balance to reach whatever level is needed at any given
time to achieve those goals.
'Democracy' needs to be structural as well as a moral idea. Workers have been disempowered
and impoverished and disenfranchished by neoliberalism. An answer to structurally improve the
wealth AND democratic power of the workers is to build a HUGE co operative sector in each
economy: worker owned workplaces/businesses/concerns AND democratically run. THAT will
improve the situation for workers/punters: democracy where they live and work. Democracy
rooted not in fine ideas only about rights but bedded down in economic livelihoods. People
will take an interest in their local 'politics' and also understand more of the politics of
the nation. You don't have to get rid of 'capitalism' just give it a 'good run' for it's
money - some real COMPETITION. Cooperatively run Hospitals, owned by doctors and nurses and
other stakeholders - not for profit - that'll soon see the 'private' for profit' health
providers/rorters wind their prices and necks in. Socially owned, worker-owned,
government/taxpayer supported enterprise, work places, democratically run will boot up the
level of 'democracy' in our societies. We can still have voter style over-arching national
government of course. If you don't root democracy where people actually can participate and
which gives them a lot of control over their workplaces/livelihood, then it can all be
hijacked by the greedy and cunning (see neoliberalism). OH, a large cooperative sector in the
economy democratically run by workers won't deliver 'heaven on earth' - it'll still be run by
people!
It is also a tool of the neoliberals along with the whole neoliberal trend in macroeconomic
policy. The essential thing underlying this, is to try to reduce the power of government and
social forces that might exercise some power within the political economy -- workers and
others -- and put the power primarily in the hands of those dominating in the markets. That's
often the financial system, the banks, but also other elites. The idea of neoliberal
economists and policymakers being that you don't want the government getting too involved in
macroeconomic policy. You don't want them promoting too much employment because that might
lead to a raise in wages and, in turn, to a reduction in the profit share of the national
income.
Austerity fits into the mix very well Keeping wages low, or debt pressure high, means
workers will be less likely to complain or make demands. As workers struggle to provide their
families with all the temptations that a capitalist society offers, they become far less
likely to risk their employment, and less able to improve their situation.
At bottom, conservatives believe in a social hierarchy of "haves" and "have nots". They
have taken this corrosive social vision and dressed it up with a "respectable" sounding
ideology which all boils down to the cheap labour they depend on to make their fortunes.
It shows a great sense of inferiority and knowing our "proper"place, that the populace
apparently accepted the colloquial term for neo-liberalism or economic rationalism, as being
"trickle down economics" and that all that the populace deserved and was going to get was a
trickle of the alleged wealth and benefits created.
Why were most people so compliant and accepting of something that as a concept, from the
outset, was clearly signalling it would economically completely discriminate against the 99%
and was intended to provide such a meager share of the wealth and economic benefits
generated?
A quick look around the world provides clear evidence that there really are a lot of
alternatives.
That's the crux: many (western, developed) countries before us have
proven over and over again that the best type of democratic government is one in which
consensus is the basis for long-term decisions to the benefit of all. Is it tedious? Yes.
Frustrating at times? You bet. Slow? Indeed, quite often so. But the point is,
consensus-based decision making works and eventually is in everyone's interest (left,
right and centre), resulting in better long-term outcomes. With the added benefit that new
"majority" Governments won't throw out the children with the bathwater all the time.
I'd add one aspect to the article though, and that is to combine a form of proportional
representation with longer terms of Government. You won't get much meaningful done in
3 years, whatever form of representation you choose. 4 years, 5 years... whatever strikes the
best balance between governments getting some runs on the board and voters feeling empowered
to change government coalitions in the ballot box when they stuff up.
But what economic system worked in the interests of majority of population. There was only
one such system -- USA in 1935-1970th and it was the result of WWII and record profits of the US
corporation after the war, when both Europe and Japan were devastated.
In no way the USSR was social system that worked for the majority of population. It worked
for the Nomenklatura -- a pretty narrow caste, similar to current top 1% under
neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism clearly works for the interests of the minority and against the interests of
the majority. Households are now worse off than they were 6 years ago and large businesses
are enjoying record profits. It feels as if the australian economy is being run for the
benefit of a small percentage of wealthy shareholders.
While a purported devotion to the principles and precepts of neo-liberalism has been claimed
by decades of right-wing politicians, businesses and bankers, drilling down deeper often reveals
that what is really happening in favoring the economic interests of the few at the expense of the
many, and very often involving compulsorily actions like switch to 401K accounts. Which was stoke
of genius for neoliberals to fleeces common people. acquired
Speaking as no fan of neo-liberalism, but there is a risk that the term gets overused. Things
that the right have embraced with open arms, like compulsory retirement savings (which have
enriched the private sector, especially banks and their shareholders), would have caused
sharp intakes of breath from the steely-eyed theorists who came up with the concept. While a
purported devotion to the principles and precepts of neo-liberalism has been claimed by
decades of right-wing politicians, businesses and bankers, drilling down deeper often reveals
that what is really happening in favouring the economic interests of the few at the expense
of the many, and very often involving compulsorily acquired public resources being
re-directed to business, with barely even the thinnest veneer of genuine theoretical
observance to the neo-liberal model. Both neo-liberalism itself, and bogus claims of its
practical use and benefits, need to be dead and buried.
I really would love the rich and powerful who basically prey on the average
person/worker/mums and dads, to be held accountable and penalised properly in relation to
their deeds. These bastards destroy families in their grab for greed, and almost every time
they are excused by their cohorts, and even go on to bigger and better opportunities to keep
feeding their voracious greedy appetites. Basically they steal, so why isn't their proceeds
of crime taken back by government; and why do they not do any jail time?
Natural monopolies like water and power, roads and public transport should be in public
hands. All call centres dealing with government issues should be done by public servants, not
outsourced to foreign corporations.
I'd start with a bank. Give people a non-greed infested alternative.
Under neo-liberalism we have gone from 1 person, 1 vote to $1, one vote. The con job that
is 'small government and little or no regulations' is bad for society and the environment.
Greed over need.
Dr. T. J. Coles is director of the Plymouth Institute for Peace Research and the author of
several books, including Voices for Peace (with Noam Chomsky and others) and the forthcoming
Fire and Fury: How the US Isolates North Korea, Encircles China and Risks Nuclear War in Asia
(both Clairview Books).
The current economic model being used by capitalist countries across the world is failing
most of the people in these countries while enriching tiny elites. Unfortunately, politicians
in these countries are often in the pockets of the elite or are themselves members of the
elite.
We need a new economic narrative which better reconciles the needs of the population with
the directives of the market.
Why not? Profits to the nation, not greedy corporates and their shareholders.
I think you will find there were no profits made that could be put "to the nation." When
the wall came down, the USSR and the entire eastern bloc were completely bankrupt.
As was Mao's China prior to the emergence of Deng and his "to get rich is glorious"
mantra, that set China on its current path. Of course his generally market-oriented approach
has since been bastardised to one of One Party State-capitalism dominated by cronyism,
corruption, and a perverted justice system.
Yes it has generated vast wealth, but it is an empire built on sand. As any analysis of
its shadow banking system will show.
And while the legions of newly minted millionaires of party benevolence celebrate, the
hundreds of millions stuck in poverty are left to fend for themselves.
Neoliberalism is a secular religion, so it doe need to be rational, to remains influential or even dominant, much like
Bolshevism or Trotskyism (actually neoliberalism should be viewed as a perverted mutation of Trotskyism -- Trotskyism for irch) .
It took 70 years for Bolshevism to became discredited and collapse (under the attack from neoliberalism).
In the absence of alternatives neoliberalism might continues to exist in zombie state for a very long time.
Notable quotes:
"... Poverty rate in the USA has been increasing since about the year 2000. ..."
"... Why do you think that all around the world voters are going hard against Neoliberalism and why do you think that Neoliberals are desperately trying to save their bankrupt philosophy by hiding behind Nationalism and Racism? ..."
"... While I would very much like to agree with the notion that neo-liberalism is dead, there's rather too much evidence that its pernicious influence lingers ghost-like and ghastly, having suffused far too many politicians of an ultra-conservative ilk ..."
"... The true believers in the neo-liberal faith, as it was never other than a creed espoused by Thatcher and Pinochet among others, are like those in the catholic church who continued to advocate an earth centric universe long after science proved them wrong. ..."
"... It will be a long wait until these myopic adherents to the gospel of Hayek, Friedman and Buchanan, are consigned to the waste bin of history where they belong. Until then, it will remain a struggle to right the many wrongs of this mis-guided and shallow populism. ..."
"... The neocons have had their day, though it'll no doubt take one hell of an effort to drag them out of their crony-capitalist, snouts-in-the-trough ways. The profit motive in the provision of essential services should be confined to covering costs, maintenance and associated investment. ..."
The death of neoliberalism means we can finally have a national debate about the size and
role of government, and the shape of the economy and society we want to build.
Unfortunately, I see lots of deaths but none of them is neoliberalism. I can see death of
a decent safety net in Australia. Death of biodiversity. Death of ecosystems. Death of
intelligent debate. Death of science.
Poverty rate in the USA has been increasing since about the year 2000. The international
poverty trend has been decreasing over time only because the definition of poverty is to earn
less than $1.25 per day..... So, if you earn $10/day you are well above the poverty line:
Good luck living on that income in any OECD country!
Standards of living are decreasing in Australia... ever heard of the housing crisis? The
household debt crisis?.... Paying for hospital and medicines, education, electricity and
other services.... should I go on?.... ACOSS found that "there are just over 3 million people
(13.2%) living below the poverty line of 50% of median income – including 739,000
children (17.3%)".
"The evil neo-liberalism" has delivered poverty, massive inequality, dissatisfaction,
unemployment/sub-employment and casualization, collapse of public services, high costs of
living.... and deterioration of the environment...
Why do you think that all around the world
voters are going hard against Neoliberalism and why do you think that Neoliberals are
desperately trying to save their bankrupt philosophy by hiding behind Nationalism and
Racism?
While I would very much like to agree with the notion that neo-liberalism is dead, there's
rather too much evidence that its pernicious influence lingers ghost-like and ghastly, having
suffused far too many politicians of an ultra-conservative ilk.
The true believers in the neo-liberal faith, as it was never other than a creed espoused
by Thatcher and Pinochet among others, are like those in the catholic church who continued to
advocate an earth centric universe long after science proved them wrong.
It will be a long wait until these myopic adherents to the gospel of Hayek, Friedman and
Buchanan, are consigned to the waste bin of history where they belong. Until then, it will
remain a struggle to right the many wrongs of this mis-guided and shallow populism.
Abso-bloody-lutely! The neocons have had their day, though it'll no doubt take one hell of an
effort to drag them out of their crony-capitalist, snouts-in-the-trough ways. The profit
motive in the provision of essential services should be confined to covering costs,
maintenance and associated investment. It's so painfully obvious that the market has not met
the needs of the average citizen without absurd cost. Bring on the revolution!
What made anyone think neo-liberalism was going to work? Why was this even tried or got past
a focus group?
Only the Murdoch press ever dreamed this could have any merit and a few totally selfish and
controlling wealthy people. 2008 and the GFC should have killed this idea instead it gained
traction as the perpetrators not only were not prosecuted but were subsidised to create more
havoc. Find the culprits and jail them ... it is not too late.
"... What about "competition", the God of Neoliberals?.... Competition can have some positive role in society only in an environment of Regulation. That's why the future is neither Neoliberal nor Socialist, but a Mixed Economy Social Democracy. ..."
"... Bring back a Commonwealth Bank! In fact bring back State run Electricity, Gas and Water utilities... ..."
"... The Coalition these days proudly subsidise their friends and regulate their enemies in order to reshape Australia in their preferred form. ..."
All essential infrastructure should be Nationalised. Water electricity supply and generation,
ports and railways, educational facilities, one major bank, one country wide telco and mail
delivery. Remove the for profit aspect, and they become assets. In at least a few of these
they also provide training opportunities across a wide spectrum of careers
Nationalise the banks and the Mining Industry .
Take back control of outrageous wages in both these sectors and return profits to the
taxpayer .
Nationalise the State Governments in other words get rid of them and appoint federal
controlled administrators same with local councils, sack the lot of them and appoint
administrators.
Just like the AFP is "nationalised", or education is also to a big extent "nationalised",
alongside a big chunk of the health system.... so we can nationalise other things, such as
the modes of production and distribution of energy, major mineral resources, etc.
What about "competition", the God of Neoliberals?.... Competition can have some positive
role in society only in an environment of Regulation. That's why the future is neither
Neoliberal nor Socialist, but a Mixed Economy Social Democracy.
Which party is for a Mixed Economy Social Democracy?.... Labor and to some extent the
Greens. A bunch of independents are also happy with the concept.... Together they are
currently a majority, only waiting for a Federal election.
"... I don't like using the term "neo-liberalism" that much because there is nothing "new" or "liberal" about it, the term itself just helps hide the fact that it's a political project more about power than profit and the end result is more like modern feudalism - an authoritarian system where the lords (bankers, energy companies and their large and inefficient attendant bureaucracies), keep us peasants in thrall through life long debt-slavery simply to buy a house or exploit us as a captured market in the case of the energy sector. ..."
"... Since the word "privatisation" is clearly no longer popular, the latest buzzword from this project is "outsourcing". ..."
"... As far as I can see "neo-liberalism", or what I prefer to call managerial and financialised feudalism is not dead, it's still out and about looking around for the next rent-seeking opportunity. ..."
"... In the political arena, is enabling porkies facilitate each other in every lunatic pronouncement about "Budget repair" and "on track for a surplus". And its spotty, textbook-spouting clones ("all debt is debt! Shriek, gasp, hyperventilate!") fall off the conveyor belts of tertiary education Australia-wide, then turn up on The Drum as IPA 'Research Fellows' to spout their evidence-free assertions. ..."
"... And don't forget the handmaiden of neoliberalism is their macroeconomic mythology about government "debt and borrowing" which will condemn our grandchildren to poverty - inter-generational theft! It also allows them to continue dismantling government social programs by giving tax-cuts to reduce "revenue" and then claiming there is no money to fund those programs. ..."
"... "Competition" as the cornerstone of neoliberal economics was always a lie. Corporations do their best to get rid of competitors by unfair pricing tactics or by takeovers. And even where some competitors hang in there by some means (banks, petrol companies) the competition that occurs is not for price but for profit. ..."
"... We find a shift away from democratic processes and the rise of the "all new adulation of the so-called tough leader" factor, aka Nazism/Fascism. From Trump to Turkey, Netanyahu to Putin, Brazil to China, the rise of the "right" in Europe, the South Americas, where the leader is "our great and "good" Teacher", knows best, and thus infantalises the knowledge and awareness of the rest of the population. Who needs scientists, when the "leader" knows everything? ..."
"... There are indeed alternatives to neoliberalism, most of which have been shown to lead back to neoliberalism. Appeals for fiscal and monetary relief/stimulus can only ever paper over the worst aspects of it's relentless 'progress', between wars, it seems. ..."
"... Neoliberalism seems vastly, catastrophically misunderstood. Widely perceived as the latest abomination to spring from the eternal battle 'twixt Labour and Capital, it's actual origins are somewhat more recent. Neoliberalism really, really is not just "Capitalism gone wrong". It goes much deeper, to a fundamental flaw buried( more accurately 'planted') deep in the heart of economics. ..."
"... In 1879 an obscure journalist from then-remote San Francisco, Henry George, took the world by storm with his extraordinary bestseller Progress and Poverty . Still the only published work to outsell the Bible in a single year, it did so for over twenty years, yet few social justice advocates have heard of it. ..."
"... George gravely threatened privileged global power-elites , so they erased him from academic history. A mind compared, in his time with Plato, Copernicus and Adam Smith wiped from living memory, by the modern aristocracy. ..."
"... In the process of doing so, they emasculated the discipline of economics, stripped dignity from labour, and set in motion a world-destroying doctrine. Neo-Classical Economics(aka neoliberalism) was born , to the detriment of the working-citizen and the living world on which s/he depends. ..."
I don't like using the term "neo-liberalism" that much because there is nothing "new" or
"liberal" about it, the term itself just helps hide the fact that it's a political project
more about power than profit and the end result is more like modern feudalism - an
authoritarian system where the lords (bankers, energy companies and their large and
inefficient attendant bureaucracies), keep us peasants in thrall through life long
debt-slavery simply to buy a house or exploit us as a captured market in the case of the
energy sector.
Since the word "privatisation" is clearly no longer popular, the latest buzzword from this
project is "outsourcing". If you've had a look at The Canberra Times over the last couple of
weeks there have been quite a few articles about outsourcing parts of Medicare and Centrelink, using labour hire companies and so on – is this part of a current LNP plan
to "sell off" parts of the government before Labour takes the reins in May?
As far as I can see "neo-liberalism", or what I prefer to call managerial and
financialised feudalism is not dead, it's still out and about looking around for the next
rent-seeking opportunity.
Neoliberalism "dead"?
I think not.
It is riveted on the country like a straitjacket.
Which is exactly what it was always intended to be, a system gamed and rigged to ensure the
wage-earning scum obtain progressively less and less of the country's productive wealth,
however much they contributed to it.
The wage theft and exploitation Neoliberalism fosters has become the new norm.
Neoliberal idealogues thickly infest Federal and State Treasuries.
In the political arena, is enabling porkies facilitate each other in every lunatic
pronouncement about "Budget repair" and "on track for a surplus".
And its spotty, textbook-spouting clones ("all debt is debt! Shriek, gasp, hyperventilate!")
fall off the conveyor belts of tertiary education Australia-wide, then turn up on The Drum as
IPA 'Research Fellows' to spout their evidence-free assertions.
The IPA itself has moles in govt at every level--even in your local Council.
Certainly in ours.
Neoliberalism is "dead"?
Correction.
Neoliberalism is alive, thriving---and quick to ensure its glaring deficiencies and
inequities are solely attributable to its opponents. Now THERE'S a surprise.....
Agree! And don't forget the handmaiden of neoliberalism is their macroeconomic mythology
about government "debt and borrowing" which will condemn our grandchildren to poverty -
inter-generational theft! It also allows them to continue dismantling government social programs by giving tax-cuts
to reduce "revenue" and then claiming there is no money to fund those programs.
Neoliberalism will not be dead until the underpinning of neoliberalism is abandoned by ALP
and Greens. That underpinning is their mindless attachment to "budget repair" and "return to
surplus". The federal government's "budget" is nothing like a currency user's budget.
Currency users collect in order to spend whereas every dollar spent by the federal government
is a new dollar and every dollar taxed by the federal government is an ex-dollar. A currency
cannot sensibly have "debt" in the currency that it issues and no amount of surplus or
deficit now will enhance or impair its capacity to spend in future. A currency issuer does
not need an electronic piggybank, or a Future Fund, or a Drought Relief Fund. It can't max
out an imaginary credit card. It's "borrowing" is just an exchange of its termless no-coupon
liabilities (currency) for term-limited coupon-bearing liabilities (bonds). The federal
budget balance is no rational indicator of any need for austerity or for stimulus. The
rational indicators are unemployment (too small a "deficit"/too large a surplus) and
inflation (too large a "deficit"/too small a "surplus"). Federal taxation is where dollars go
to die. It doesn't "fund" a currency issuer's spending - it is there to stop the dollars it
issues from piling up and causing inflation and to make room for spending by democratically
elected federal parliament. The name of the game is to balance the economy, not the entirely
notional and fundamentally irrelevant "budget".
"Competition" as the cornerstone of neoliberal economics was always a lie. Corporations do
their best to get rid of competitors by unfair pricing tactics or by takeovers. And even
where some competitors hang in there by some means (banks, petrol companies) the competition
that occurs is not for price but for profit.
And changing the electoral system? Yes indeed. After years of observation it seems to me
that the problem with our politics is not individual politicians (although there are notable
exceptions) but political parties. Rigid control of policies and voting on party instruction
(even by the Greens) makes the proceedings of parliament a complete waste of time. If every
policy had to run the gauntlet of 150 people all voting by their conscience we would have
better policy. The executive functions could be carried out by a cabinet also elected from
those members. But not going to happen - too many vested interests in the parties and their
corporate sponsors.
With the election of Bolsonaro in Brazil (even though nearly 30% of electors refused to vote)
it may be a little presumptuous to dissect the dead corpse of neoliberalism, as Richard
Denniss' hopes that we can.
What is absolutely gob-smacking is that Brazilians voted for him; a man that Glenn Greenwald
describes as "far more dangerous than Trump" , that Bolsonaro envisages military
dictatorships as "being a far more superior form of government" advocating a civil war
in order to dispose of the left.
Furthermore, the election of this far-right neoliberal extremist also threatens the Amazon
forest and its indigenous people; with a global impact that will render combatting climate
change even more difficult.
Locally, recent Liberal Party battles over leadership have included the neolib factor, as the
lunatic right in that party - who I suspect would all love to be a Bolsonaro themselves -
aggressively activate their grumblings and dissension.
Oh, Richard how I wish you were right; but in the Victorian election campaign - currently
underway - I have seen Socialist candidates behaving in a manner that doesn't garner hope in
a different way of doing politics.
The fact that 'our' democracy is based on an adversarial, partisan system leaves me with
little hope.
Alain Badiou wrote that "ours is not a world of democracy but a world of imperial
conservatism using democratic phraseology" ; and until that imposition is discarded 'our'
democracy will remain whatever we are told it is, and neolibs will continue to shove their
bullshit down our throats as much as they can.
We find a shift away from democratic processes and the rise of the "all new
adulation of the so-called tough leader" factor, aka Nazism/Fascism. From Trump to
Turkey, Netanyahu to Putin, Brazil to China, the rise of the "right" in Europe, the South
Americas, where the leader is "our great and "good" Teacher", knows best, and thus
infantalises the knowledge and awareness of the rest of the population. Who needs scientists,
when the "leader" knows everything?
Have the people of the world abrogated their democratic responsibility?
Or is it the gerrymandering chicanery of US Republican backers/politicians( so long as you
control the voting machines ) that have sent the ugly message to the world, Power is yours
for the making and taking by any means that ignores the public's rights in the decision
making process. Has the "neo-liberal" world delivered a corrupted system of democracy that
has deliberately alienated the world's population from actively participating fully in the
full awareness that their vote counts and will be counted?
Do we need to take back the controls of democracy to ensure that it is the will of the
people and not a manipulation by vested interest groups/individuals? You're darn
tootin'!!!
A thoughtful piece. Thanks. There are indeed alternatives to neoliberalism, most of which
have been shown to lead back to neoliberalism. Appeals for fiscal and monetary
relief/stimulus can only ever paper over the worst aspects of it's relentless 'progress',
between wars, it seems.
Neoliberalism seems vastly, catastrophically misunderstood. Widely perceived as the
latest abomination to spring from the eternal battle 'twixt Labour and Capital, it's actual
origins are somewhat more recent. Neoliberalism really, really is not just "Capitalism gone
wrong". It goes much deeper, to a fundamental flaw buried( more accurately 'planted')
deep in the heart of economics.
Instead of trying to understand Neo-Classical Economics it is perhaps more instructive to
understand what it was built, layer by layer, to obscure. First the Land system, then the
Wealth system, and finally the Money system (hived off into a compartment - 'macroeconomics').
Importantly, three entirely different categories of "thing" .
In 1879 an obscure journalist from then-remote San Francisco, Henry George, took the world
by storm with his extraordinary bestseller Progress and Poverty . Still the only
published work to outsell the Bible in a single year, it did so for over twenty years, yet
few social justice advocates have heard of it.
George set out to discover why the worst poverty always seemed to accompany the most
progress. By chasing down the production process to its ends, and tracing where the proceeds
were going, he succeeded spectacularly. From Progress and Poverty , Chapter 17 - "The Problem Explained"
:
Three things unite in production: land, labor, and capital. Three parties divide the
output: landowner, laborer, and capitalist. If the laborer and capitalist get no more as
production increases, it is a necessary inference that the landowner takes the gain.
George
gravely threatened privileged global power-elites , so they erased him from academic
history. A mind compared, in his time with Plato, Copernicus and Adam Smith wiped from living
memory, by the modern aristocracy.
In the process of doing so, they emasculated the discipline of economics, stripped dignity
from labour, and set in motion a world-destroying doctrine. Neo-Classical
Economics(aka neoliberalism) was born , to the detriment of the working-citizen and the
living world on which s/he depends.
Einstein was a fan of George, and used his methods of thought-experiment and powerful
inductive reasoning to discover Relativity, twenty years later. Henry Georges brilliant
insights into Land (aka nature), Wealth (what you want, need), and Money
(sharing mechanism) are as relevant as ever, and until they are rediscovered, we are likely
to re-run the 1900's over and over, with fewer and fewer resources.
In Christian tradition, the
love of money is condemned as a sin primarily based on texts
such as Ecclesiastes 5.10 and
1 Timothy 6:10. The Jewish and
Christian condemnation relates to avarice
and greed rather than
money itself. Christian texts (scriptures) are full of
parables and use easy to understand subjects, such as money, to convey the actual message, there are further parallels in
Solon and
Aristotle,[1]
and Massinissa-who ascribed love of
money to Hannibal and the
Carthaginians.[2].
While certain political ideologies, such as
neoliberalism, assume and promote the view that the behavior that capitalism fosters in individuals is natural to humans,[2][3]
anthropologists like
Richard Robbins
point out that there is nothing natural about this behavior - people are not naturally dispossessed to accumulate wealth and
driven by wage-labor
Neoliberalism abstract the economic sphere from other aspects of society (politics, culture, family etc., with any political
activity constituting an
intervention into the natural process of the market, for example) and assume that people make rational exchanges in the sphere
of market transactions. In reality rational economic exchanges are actually heavily influenced by pre-existing social ties and
other factors.
Under neoliberalism both the society and culture revolve around business activity (the accumulation of capital). As such,
business activity and the "free market" exchange (despite the fact that "free market" never existed in human history) are often
viewed as being absolute or "natural" in that all other human social relations revolve around these processes (or should exist to
facilitate one's ability to perform these processes
Notable quotes:
"... Conwell equated poverty with sin and asserted that anyone could become rich through hard work. This gospel of wealth, however, was an expression of Muscular Christianity and understood success to be the result of personal effort rather than divine intervention. [5] ..."
"... They criticized many aspects of the prosperity gospel, noting particularly the tendency of believers to lack compassion for the poor, since their poverty was seen as a sign that they had not followed the rules and therefore are not loved by God ..."
According to historian Kate Bowler , the prosperity gospel was formed
from the intersection of three different ideologies: Pentecostalism , New Thought , and "an American gospel of
pragmatism, individualism, and upward mobility". [4]
This "American gospel" was best exemplified by Andrew Carnegie 's Gospel of Wealth and Russell Conwell 's famous sermon
"Acres of Diamonds", in which Conwell equated poverty with sin and asserted that anyone could
become rich through hard work. This gospel of wealth, however, was an expression of Muscular Christianity
and understood success to be the result of personal effort rather than divine intervention.
[5]
... ... ...
In 2005, Matthew
Ashimolowo , the founder of the largely African
Kingsway International Christian Centre in southern England, which preaches a "health and
wealth" gospel and collects regular tithes, was ordered by the Charity Commission to repay money he had
appropriated for his personal use. In 2017, the organisation was under criminal investigation
after a leading member was found by a court in 2015 to have operated a Ponzi scheme between 2007 and 2011, losing or
spending £8 million of investors' money. [43]
36]Hanna Rosin of The Atlantic argues that
prosperity theology contributed to the housing bubble that caused the
late-2000s
financial crisis . She maintains that home ownership was heavily emphasized in prosperity
churches, based on reliance on divine financial intervention that led to unwise choices based
on actual financial ability. [36]
... ... ...
Historian Carter
Lindberg of Boston University has drawn parallels
between contemporary prosperity theology and the medieval indulgence trade .
[69] Coleman notes that several pre–20th century Christian movements in the
United States taught that a holy lifestyle was a path to prosperity and that God-ordained hard
work would bring blessing. [16]
... ... ...
In April 2015, LDS apostle
Dallin H. Oaks
stated that people who believe in "the theology of prosperity" are deceived by riches. He
continued by saying that the "possession of wealth or significant income is not a mark of
heavenly favor, and their absence is not evidence of heavenly disfavor". He also cited how
Jesus differentiated the attitudes towards money held by the young rich man in Mark
10:17–24, the good Samaritan, and Judas Iscariot in his betrayal. Oaks concluded this
portion of his sermon by highlighting that the "root of all evil is not money but the love of
money". [90]
In 2015, well known pastor and prosperity gospel advocate Creflo Dollar launched a
fundraising campaign to replace a previous private jet with a $65 million Gulfstream G650.
[91] On the August
16, 2015 episode of his HBO
weekly series Last
Week Tonight , John Oliver satirized prosperity
theology by announcing that he had established his own tax-exempt church, called Our Lady of
Perpetual Exemption . In a lengthy segment, Oliver focused on what he characterized as the
predatory conduct of televangelists who appeal for repeated gifts from people in financial
distress or personal crises, and he criticized the very loose requirements for entities to
obtain tax exempt status as churches under U.S. tax law. Oliver said that he would ultimately
donate any money collected by the church to Doctors Without Borders .
[92]
In July 2018, Antonio Spadaro and Marcelo Figueroa, in the Jesuit journal La Civilità
Cattolica , examined the origins of the prosperity gospel in the United States and
described it as a reductive version of the American Dream which had offered
opportunities of success and prosperity unreachable in the Old World . The authors distinguished the
prosperity gospel from Max
Weber 's Protestant
ethic , noting that the protestant ethic related prosperity to religiously inspired
austerity while the prosperity gospel saw prosperity as the simple result of personal faith.
They criticized many aspects of the prosperity gospel, noting particularly the tendency of
believers to lack compassion for the poor, since their poverty was seen as a sign that they had
not followed the rules and therefore are not loved by God . [93][94]
Neo- liberalism is not dead its only just started. We are not in an era of democracy and
freedom but of Oligarchy and governmental servitude.
Less restrictions doesn't mean freedom it mean free booters, privateers , and plunderers are
given government support and handouts the only thing free is their right to take.
The pirates who plunder the most are given Hero status and those plundered are laughed at
as losers.
Looks around you governments are becoming agents of theft find ways to channel money to
those who don't need it . They say its right wing fascism but its not for all their evil the
fascists were determined to improve the lot of the people, however perversely they went about
it.
What we have today is legalised privateering.
None of the political parties today have the least intention to change a system that works
for them.
Fred, I can't remember who said it, but an observer of human systems and institutions made
the observation that unless the prevalent social, economic or political structures of the day
was not either changed or renewed, then those within the system would 'game' it; corrupting
it from within for personal benefit to the detriment of society as a whole.
This perfectly sums up neo-liberalism.
Whatever positive virtues were extolled when this ideology was adopted wholesale by so many
governments and societies (and please spare me the '-we delivered billions out of poverty!'
line, that was a positive byproduct, never the objective of neo-liberalism), it has since
become thoroughly corrupted, serving an ever shrinking percentage of society - entrenching a
super-wealthy 'ruling class' that makes a mockery of the idea of democracy.
It's time to ditch this 21st Century feudalistic construct, and replace it with something
that serves the whole of society with more justice than this current gravy train for the one
percenters.
Fully agree with the things being said here. The privatisation of essential services has been
a bloody disaster. Telecommunications, health, education energy production/distribution. Look
at what the NSW conservatives are doing the the public transport or the feds have done to our
communications, including Telstra the ABC and SBS.
But the issue is that this will just turn into an ongoing political football with each
successive conservative government trying to sell off the farm again.
These critical public services and infrastructure must be protected in law needing a
referendum to make major changes. Also their funding must be guaranteed and they must be run
at arms length from the government to reduce political interference and ensure they are
delivering the best possible service and are competitive with the huge private sector
operators.
There charter of operation and obligation to the public must be extremely robust and
clearly outline their duties of care to operate in a transparent and open fashion putting the
public interest as a priority.
The opposite of a neoliberal economic agenda isn't a progressive economic agenda, but
democratic re-engagement.
You can have democratic engagement voting for a 'neo-liberal economic agenda'. In fact
we've had it for decades.
But of course not even the Coalition believes that any more. These days they proudly
subsidise their friends and regulate their enemies in order to reshape Australia in their
preferred form.
They're politicians - they've never applied their ideological views in a pure way. This is
nothing new.
Ironically, one of the major objections to proportional representation in Australia has
been that it tends to deliver minority government, a situation that the major parties
prefer to avoid.
There's a big difference between minority government by a major party + a handful of
votes, versus a minority government by a handful of minority parties, or a major party + a
minor party. They tend to lead to the kind of instability we'd prefer to avoid.
The death of neoliberalism means
I think you've called it a bit prematurely. Both major parties here are still peddling
neo-liberalism, with policies which only differ on the margins.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.~Thomas Jefferson~
When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since
the hand that gives is above the hand that takes Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency;
their sole object is gain." – Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France, 1815
"... Since Mrs Thatcher and the 364 economists, the neoliberal right has had an interest in discrediting economic expertise, and replacing academic economists with City economists in positions of influence. ..."
"... The first is access. Through a dominance of the printed media, a right wing elite can get a message across despite it being misleading or simply untrue. ..."
"... The second is that the elite often plays on a simple understanding of how things work, and dismisses anything more complex, when it suits them. ..."
"... As the earlier reference to Mrs Thatcher suggests, there is a common pattern to these attacks by elites on experts: they come from the neoliberal right. ..."
"... Attacks by elites on experts tend to come from the political right and not the left, and the neoliberal right in particular because they have an ideology to sell. ..."
The Bank's analysis is of course not beyond criticism. [2] But the attacks of the Brexiter
elite are quite deliberately not economic in character but political: Rees Mogg claimed Carney
is a second rate politician (a second rate foreign politician!) and his forecast is
designed to produce a political outcome ('Project Hysteria'). The idea is to suggest that these
projections should not be taken as a warning by experts but instead as a political act. Once
again, I'm not suggesting
we should never think about what an experts own interests might be, but if you carry this line
of thought to the Rees Mogg extreme you undermine all expertise that is not ideologically
based, which is exactly what Rees Mogg wants to do.
This I think is the second reason why the view of the overwhelming majority academic economists
that Brexit will be harmful is going to be ignored by many. Since Mrs Thatcher and the 364
economists, the neoliberal right has had an interest in discrediting economic expertise, and
replacing academic economists with City economists in positions of influence. (Despite
what most journalists will tell you, the 364 were correct
that tightening fiscal policy delayed the recovery.) Right wing think tanks like the IEA are
particularly useful in this respect, partly because the media often makes no distinction
between independent academics and think tank employees. Just look at how the media began to
treat climate change as controversial.
But isn't there a paradox here? Why would members of the public, who have little trust in
politicians compared to academics, believe politicians and their backers when they attack
academics? In the case of Brexit, and I think other issues like austerity, these elites have
two advantages. The first is access. Through a dominance of the printed media, a right wing
elite can get a message across despite it being misleading or simply untrue. Remember how
Labour's fiscal profligacy caused record deficits? Half the country believe this to be a fact
despite it being an obvious lie. What will most journalists tell you about Brexit and
forecasts? My guess is that forecasters got the immediate impact of Brexit very wrong, rather
than the reality that what they expected to happen immediately happened more gradually. Why
will journalists get these things wrong? Because they read repeated messages about failed
forecasts in the right wing press, but very little about how GDP is currently around 2.5% lower
as a result of Brexit, and real wages are lower still. The second is that the elite often plays on a simple understanding of how things work, and
dismisses anything more complex, when it suits them. Immigrants 'obviously' increase
competition for scarce public resources, because people typically fail to allow for immigrants
adding to public services either directly or through their taxes. The government should
'obviously' tighten its belt when consumers are having to do the same, and so on. In the case
of the economic effects of Brexit, it is obvious that we will save money by not paying in to
the EU, whereas everything else is uncertain and who believes forecasts etc. As the earlier reference to Mrs Thatcher suggests, there is a common pattern to these
attacks by elites on experts: they come from the neoliberal right. If you want to call the
Blair/Brown years neoliberal as well, you have to make a distinction between [neoliberal] right
and left. The Blair/Brown period was a high point for the influence of academics in general and
academic economists in particular
on government. As I note here , Iraq was
the exception not the rule, for clear reasons. Attacks by elites on experts tend to come
from the political right and not the left, and the neoliberal right in particular because they
have an ideology to sell.
In the United States
today, and throughout "Western Brainwashed Civilization," only a handful of people exist who
are capable of differentiating the real from the created reality in which all explanations are
controlled and kept as far away from the truth as possible.
Everything that every Western government and "news" organization says is a lie to control
the explanations that we are fed in order to keep us locked in The Matrix.
The ability to control people's understandings is so extraordinary that, despite massive
evidence to the contrary, Americans believe that Oswald, acting alone, was the best shot in
human history and using magic bullets killed President John F. Kenndy; that a handful of Saudi
Arabians who demonstratively could not fly airplanes outwitted the American national security
state and brought down 3 World Trade Center skyscrapers and part of the Pentagon; that Saddam
Hussein had and was going to use on the US "weapons of mass destruction;" that Assad "used
chemical weapons" against "his own people;" that Libya's Gaddifi gave his soldiers Viagra so
they could better rape Libyan women; that Russia "invaded Ukraine;" that Trump and Putin stole
the presidential election from Hillary.
The construction of a make-believe reality guarantees the US military/security complex's
annual budget of $1,000 billion dollars of taxpayers' money even as Congress debates cutting
Social Security in order to divert more largess to the pockets of the corrupt military/security
complex.
Readers ask me what they can do about it. Nothing, except revolt and cleanse the system,
precisely as Founding Father Thomas Jefferson said.
"... Another reason for the instability of the Western system is that two of the main areas of sovereignty are not included in the state structure: control of credit/banking and corporations. These two elements are therefore free of political controls and responsibility. They have largely monopolized power in Western Civilization and in American society. They are ruthlessly going forward to eliminate land, labour, entrepreneur-management skills and everything else the economists once told us were the chief elements of production. ..."
Summary of Prof. Carroll Quigley's
Last Public Lecture Given Months Before He Died:
"The 3rd. Oscar Iden Lecture 1978"
By Christopher M. Quigley B.Sc., M.M.I.I., M.A.
"This shift from customary conformity to decision making by some other power, in its
final stages, results in the dualism of almost totalitarian imperialism and an
amorphous mass culture of atomised individuals.
The fundamental, all pervasive cause of World instability today is the destruction of
communities by the commercialization of all human relationships and the resulting
neurosis and psychosis.
Another reason for the instability of the Western system is that two of the main areas
of sovereignty are not included in the state structure: control of credit/banking and
corporations. These two elements are therefore free of political controls and
responsibility.
They have largely monopolized power in Western Civilization and in American society.
They are ruthlessly going forward to eliminate land, labour, entrepreneur-management
skills and everything else the economists once told us were the chief elements of
production.
The only element of production they are concerned with is the one they control:
capital. Thus capital intensification has destroyed food, manufacturing, farming and
communities. All these processes create frustrations on every level of modern human
experience and result in the instability and disorder we see around everyday."
Carroll Quigley
In 1978 Professor Carroll Quigley, a few months before he died, gave three lectures at
Georgetown University, Washington. The lecture series was sponsored by a grant from the
Oscar Iden endowment.
The genius of Carroll Quigley shone through his three presentations because, as always, he
forced his audience to think. His essays covered the thousand years of the growth of the
State in the Western tradition from 976 – 1976. His approach went against the grain of
most academics who only taught history in short sound bites.
Quigley believed that you could not understand anything unless you saw the whole, and the
essence of his philosophy was that history is logical, i.e. things happen for a reason.
For him the core of all that occurs throughout the ages is the underlying force of
fundamental human values.
Leaders, rulers and executives who miss this point are prone to make erroneous decisions
because their actions will be based on flawed analysis and understanding. The professor
saw that American society and Western Civilization were in serious trouble in the late
70's. In hindsight his final essay
The State of Individuals
was particularly
prophetic and events during the subsequent 32 years have exonerated his controversial
conclusions.
In summary this essay stated the following:
Society is an organization of persons and artifacts to satisfy human needs.
Currently our desires are remote from our true needs. Societies are built on needs and
they are ultimately destroyed through desires.
Power between the state and the society rests on the ability of the state to satisfy human
needs. The state is a good state if it is sovereign and responsible.
There are seven level of culture or aspects of society: military, political, economic,
social, emotional, religious and intellectual.
Military
: men cannot live outside of groups. They can satisfy their needs only by
co-operating within community. The group needs to be defended.
Political:
If men operate within groups you must have a method to settle disputes.
Economic:
The group must have organizational patterns for satisfying material
needs.
Social:
Man and women are social beings. They have a need for other people. They
have a need to love and be loved.
Emotional:
Men and women must have emotional experiences. Moment to moment with
other people and moment to moment with nature.
Religious:
Human beings have a need for a feeling of certitude in their minds about
things they cannot control and do not fully understand.
Intellectual:
Men and women have a need to comprehend and discuss.
Power is the ability in society to meet these eight fore-mentioned human needs.
Community is group of people with close inter-personal relationships. Without community no
infant will be sufficiently socialized. Most of our internal controls which make society
function have historically been learnt in community. Prior to 976 most controls in society
were internal. In the West after 976 due to specialization and commercial expansion
controls began to be externalized.
Sovereignty has eight aspects: defence, judicial, administrative, taxation, legislation,
executive, monetary and incorporating power.
Expansion in society brings growing commercialization with the result that all values, in
time, become monetized. As expansion continues it slows with the result that society
becomes politicized and eventually militarized. This shift from customary conformity to
decision making by some other power in its final stages results in the dualism of almost
totalitarian imperialism and an amorphous mass culture of atomised individuals.
The main theme in our society today is [ruthless] competition, and no truly stable society
can possibly be built on such a premise. In the long term society must be based on
association and co-operation.
From 1855 Western Civilization has shown signs of becoming increasingly unstable due to:
technology and the displacement of labour: increased use of propaganda to brainwash people
into thinking society was good and true; an increased emphasis on material desires; the
increased emphasis on individualism over conformity; growing focus on quantity rather than
quality; increased demand for vicarious satisfactions.
As a result more and more people began to comprehend that the state was not a society with
community values. This realisation brought increasing instability.
Another element of the trend towards instability in Western Civilization was the growth in
weapon
systems that if actually used would ensure total destruction of the planet. This in effect
meant that they were effectively redundant.
In addition the expansion of the last 150 years has in essence been based on fossil fuels.
The energy which gave us the industrial revolution, coal – oil – natural gas – represented
the combined savings of four weeks of sunlight that managed to be accumulated on earth out
of the previous three billion years of sunshine.
This resource instead of being saved has been lost. Gone forever never to return. The
fundamental all pervasive cause of World instability today is the destruction of
communities by the commercialization of all human relationships and the resulting neurosis
and psychosis.
Medical science and all the population explosions have continued to produce more and more
people while the food supply and the supply of jobs are becoming increasingly precarious,
not only in the United States, but everywhere, because the whole purpose of using fossil
fuels in the corporate structure is the elimination of jobs.
Another reason for the instability of the Western system is that two of the main areas of
sovereignty are not included in the state structure: control of credit/banking and
corporations. These two elements are therefore free of political controls and
responsibility. They have largely monopolized power in Western Civilization and in
American society. They are ruthlessly going forward to eliminate land, labour,
entrepreneur-management skills and everything else the economists once told us were the
chief elements of production.
The only element of production they are concerned with is the one they control: capital.
Thus capital intensification has destroyed food, manufacturing, farming and communities.
All these processes create frustrations on every level of modern human experience and
result in the instability and disorder we see around everyday.
Today in America there is a developing constitutional crisis. The three branches of
government set up in 1789 do not contain the eight aspects of sovereignty. As a result
each has tried to go outside the sphere in which it should be restrained. The constitution
completely ignores, for example, the administrative power.
As a result the courts, in particular the Supreme court, is making decisions it should not
be making. In addition the President, who by the constitution should be easily impeached,
has become all powerful to such an extent that the office is now as basically Imperial.
However, to me the most obvious flaw in our constitutional set-up is the fact that the
federal government does not have control over money and credit and does not have control
over corporations. It is therefore not really sovereign and is not really responsible.
The final result is that the American people will unfortunately prefer communities. They
will cop or opt out of the system. Today everything is a bureaucratic structure, and
brainwashed people who are not personalities are trained to fit into it and say it is a
great life but I think otherwise.
Do not be pessimistic. Life goes on; life is fun. And if a civilization crashed it
deserves to. When Rome fell the Christian answer was. "Create your own communities."
Source: The Oscar Iden Lecture Series Georgetown University Library: Prof. Carroll
Quigley
Please replace conservatism with neoliberalism in this post...
Notable quotes:
"... There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. ..."
"... As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself -- backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence. ..."
"... FDR used "liberal" for its connotation of generosity just as he repurposed "freedom" as, say, freedom from fear or want. A practical politician overseeing one of the great realignments in American partisan political history, FDR, by virtue of his own family name, could appropriate much of the reputational capital of progressive reform, but he also needed the Republican Progressive faction in his New Deal coalition, as support for agenda items like the Tennessee Valley Authority (public ownership of the means of producing electricity! What will we tell the grandkids?) ..."
"... US partisan politics now is undergoing its own crisis of legitimacy and realignment, as is, not incidentally, European party politics. There are splits in both Parties, though Wilentz is concerned with the split in the Democratic Par ..."
There is no such thing as liberalism -- or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political
analogue of Gresham's Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it
be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize
conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups
whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not
protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been
proposed. "The king can do no wrong." In practice, this immunity was always extended to the
king's friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king's
friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the
king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always
been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions
of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the
accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy
is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core
proposition itself -- backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by
violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect
anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map "liberalism", or "progressivism", or
"socialism", or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of
anti-conservatism.
No, it a'n't. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the
collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition
of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is
necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone
unless it protects everyone.
bruce wilder, 03.23.18 at 1:40 pm
I read the Sean Wilentz article and it seems to be an exercise in virtue signalling by a
political centrist and Democratic partisan. Like most left-neoliberals, he doesn't want to be
called a neoliberal or acknowledge the political dynamics that have cast his own political
tendency as villains, and he cannot understand why betrayal rebranded as "practical" isn't
selling better.
Wilentz did not write the straightforward piece J-D wishes for because to do so would
reveal too much of the reprehensible nature of the Democratic Party politics he has decided
to praise.
It is strange that an historian would write a piece whose rhetoric seems premised on such
labels having reliable definitions constant thru time when he clearly knows that such labels
are repeatedly re-purposed by succeeding generations.
FDR used "liberal" for its connotation
of generosity just as he repurposed "freedom" as, say, freedom from fear or want. A practical
politician overseeing one of the great realignments in American partisan political history,
FDR, by virtue of his own family name, could appropriate much of the reputational capital of
progressive reform, but he also needed the Republican Progressive faction in his New Deal
coalition, as support for agenda items like the Tennessee Valley Authority (public ownership
of the means of producing electricity! What will we tell the grandkids?)
But, the New Deal was then, and now is something else.
US partisan politics now is
undergoing its own crisis of legitimacy and realignment, as is, not incidentally, European
party politics. There are splits in both Parties, though Wilentz is concerned with the split
in the Democratic Party, which has people who actually care at odds with those, like Wilentz,
who want to be seen to care while maintaining plausible deniability.
It is strange that an historian would write a piece whose rhetoric seems
premised on such labels having reliable definitions constant thru time when he clearly knows
that such labels are repeatedly re-purposed by succeeding generations.
Yes, I was amused to think of François Hollande presidency, the successful
candidate of the Socialist party, each time he wrote the word socialism to relate today and
the 1920s.
"... The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at governments that run up debt. And, of course, its loans famously come with strings attached: adopt a free-market economy, or strengthen the one you have, kissing goodbye to the Big State. ..."
"... Yet, the irony is painful. Neoliberal ideology insists that states are too big and cumbersome, too centralized and faceless, to be efficient and responsive ..."
"... The problem is that the ruthless sentimentalists of neoliberalism like to tell themselves – and anyone else who will listen – that removing the dead hand of state control frees the individual citizen to be entrepreneurial and productive. Instead, it places the financially powerful beyond any state, in an international elite that makes its own rules, and holds governments to ransom. That's what the financial crisis was all about ..."
"... Markets cannot be free. Markets have to be nurtured. They have to be invested in. Markets have to be grown. Google, Amazon and Apple haven't taught anyone in this country to read. But even though an illiterate market wouldn't be so great for them, they avoid their taxes, because they can, because they are more powerful than governments. ..."
"... The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this. It insists that the provision of work alone is enough of an invisible hand to sustain a market. Yet even Adam Smith, the economist who came up with that theory , did not agree that economic activity alone was enough to keep humans decent and civilised. ..."
The crash was a write-off, not a repair job. The response should be a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth
is created and distributed around the globe
he IMF's limited admission of guilt over the Greek bailout is a start, but they still can't see the global financial system's
fundamental flaws, writes Deborah Orr.
The International Monetary Fund has admitted that some of the decisions it made in the wake of the 2007-2008 financial crisis
were wrong, and that the €130bn first bailout of Greece was "bungled". Well, yes. If it hadn't been a mistake, then it would have
been the only bailout and everyone in Greece would have lived happily ever after.
Actually, the IMF hasn't quite admitted that it messed things up. It has said instead that it went along with its partners in
"the Troika" – the European Commission and the European Central Bank – when it shouldn't have. The EC and the ECB, says the IMF,
put the interests of the Eurozone before the interests of Greece. The EC and the ECB, in turn, clutch their pearls and splutter with
horror that they could be accused of something so petty as self-preservation.
The IMF also admits that it "underestimated" the effect austerity would have on Greece. Obviously, the rest of the Troika takes
no issue with that. Even those who substitute "kick up the arse to all the lazy scroungers" whenever they encounter the word "austerity",
have cottoned on to the fact that the word can only be intoned with facial features locked into a suitably tragic mask.
Yet, mealy-mouthed and hotly contested as this minor mea culpa is, it's still a sign that financial institutions may slowly be
coming round to the idea that they are the problem. They know the crash was a debt-bubble that burst. What they don't seem to acknowledge
is that the merry days of reckless lending are never going to return; even if they do, the same thing will happen again, but more
quickly and more savagely. The thing is this: the crash was a write-off, not a repair job. The response from the start should have
been a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth is created and distributed around the globe, a "structural adjustment",
as the philosopher
John Gray has said all along.
The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at governments that run up debt. And, of
course, its loans famously come with strings attached: adopt a free-market economy, or strengthen the one you have, kissing goodbye
to the Big State.
Yet, the irony is painful. Neoliberal ideology insists that states are too big and cumbersome, too centralized and faceless,
to be efficient and responsive. I agree.
The problem is that the ruthless sentimentalists of neoliberalism like to tell themselves – and anyone else who will listen
– that removing the dead hand of state control frees the individual citizen to be entrepreneurial and productive. Instead, it places
the financially powerful beyond any state, in an international elite that makes its own rules, and holds governments to ransom. That's
what the financial crisis was all about. The ransom was paid, and as a result, governments have been obliged to limit their
activities yet further – some setting about the task with greater relish than others. Now the task, supposedly, is to get the free
market up and running again.
But the basic problem is this: it costs a lot of money to cultivate a market – a group of consumers – and the more sophisticated
the market is, the more expensive it is to cultivate them. A developed market needs to be populated with educated, healthy, cultured,
law-abiding and financially secure people – people who expect to be well paid themselves, having been brought up believing in material
aspiration, as consumers need to be.
So why, exactly, given the huge amount of investment needed to create such a market, should access to it then be "free"? The neoliberal
idea is that the cultivation itself should be conducted privately as well. They see "austerity" as a way of forcing that agenda.
But how can the privatization of societal welfare possibly happen when unemployment is already high, working people are turning to
food banks to survive and the debt industry, far from being sorry that it brought the global economy to its knees, is snapping up
bargains in the form of busted high-street businesses to establish shops with nothing to sell but high-interest debt? Why, you have
to ask yourself, is this vast implausibility, this sheer un-sustainability, not blindingly obvious to all?
Markets cannot be free. Markets have to be nurtured. They have to be invested in. Markets have to be grown. Google, Amazon
and Apple haven't taught anyone in this country to read. But even though an illiterate market wouldn't be so great for them, they
avoid their taxes, because they can, because they are more powerful than governments.
And further, those who invest in these companies, and insist that taxes should be low to encourage private profit and shareholder
value, then lend governments the money they need to create these populations of sophisticated producers and consumers, berating them
for their profligacy as they do so. It's all utterly, completely, crazy.
The other day a health minister,
Anna Soubry
, suggested that female GPs who worked part-time so that they could bring up families were putting the NHS under strain. The
compartmentalised thinking is quite breathtaking. What on earth does she imagine? That it would be better for the economy if they
all left school at 16? On the contrary, the more people who are earning good money while working part-time – thus having the leisure
to consume – the better. No doubt these female GPs are sustaining both the pharmaceutical industry and the arts and media, both sectors
that Britain does well in.
As for their prioritising of family life over career – that's just another of the myriad ways in which Conservative neoliberalism
is entirely without logic. Its prophets and its disciples will happily – ecstatically – tell you that there's nothing more important
than family, unless you're a family doctor spending some of your time caring for your own. You couldn't make these characters up.
It is certainly true that women with children find it more easy to find part-time employment in the public sector. But that's a prima
facie example of how unresponsive the private sector is to human and societal need, not – as it is so often presented – evidence
that the public sector is congenitally disabled.
Much of the healthy economic growth – as opposed to the smoke and mirrors of many aspects of financial services – that Britain
enjoyed during the second half of the 20th century was due to women swelling the educated workforce. Soubry and her ilk, above all
else, forget that people have multiple roles, as consumers, as producers, as citizens and as family members. All of those things
have to be nurtured and invested in to make a market.
The neoliberalism that the IMF still preaches pays no account to any of this. It insists that the provision of work alone
is enough of an invisible hand to sustain a market. Yet even Adam Smith, the economist who
came up with that theory , did not agree
that economic activity alone was enough to keep humans decent and civilised.
Governments are left with the bill when neoliberals demand access to markets that they refuse to invest in making. Their refusal
allows them to rail against the Big State while producing the conditions that make it necessary. And even as the results of their
folly become ever more plain to see, they are grudging in their admittance of the slightest blame, bickering with their allies instead
of waking up, smelling the coffee and realising that far too much of it is sold through Starbucks.
"... power in our societies resides in structure, ideology and narratives – supporting what we might loosely term our current "neoliberal order" – rather than in individuals. Significantly, our political and media classes, who are of course deeply embedded in this neoliberal structure, are key promoters of the very opposite idea: that individuals or like-minded groups of people hold power; that they should, at least in theory, be held accountable for the use and misuse of that power; and that meaningful change involves replacing these individuals rather than fundamentally altering the power-structure they operate within. ..."
"... The [neoliberal] focus on individuals happens for a reason. It is designed to ensure that the structure and ideological foundations of our societies remain invisible to us, the public. The neoliberal order goes unquestioned – presumed, against the evidence of history, to be permanent, fixed, unchallengeable. ..."
"... These minor narratives conceal the fact that such individuals are groomed before they ever gain access to power. Business leaders, senior politicians and agenda-setting journalists reach their positions after proving themselves over and over again – not consciously but through their unthinking compliance to the power-structure of our societies. ..."
"... They rise to the top because they are the most talented examples of those who are blind or submissive to power, those who can think most cleverly without thinking critically. Those who reliably deploy their skills where they are directed to do so. ..."
"... Were the neoliberal order laid bare – were the emperor to allow himself to be stripped of his clothes – no one apart from a small psychopathic elite would vote for neoliberalism's maintenance. ..."
"... elections become an illusory contest between more transparent and more opaque iterations of neoliberal power ..."
"... Despite its best efforts, neoliberalism is increasingly discredited in the eyes of large sections of the electorate in the US and UK. Its attempts at concealment have grown jaded, its strategy exhausted. It has reached the end-game, and that is why politics now looks so unstable. "Insurgency" candidates in different guises are prospering. ..."
"... Neoliberal power is distinctive because it seeks absolute power, and can achieve that end only through global domination. Globalisation, the world as a plaything for a tiny elite to asset-strip, is both its means and its end. Insurgents are therefore those who seek to reverse the trend towards globalisation – or at least claim to. There are insurgents on both the left and right. ..."
"... A Trump figure can usefully serve power too, because he dons the clothes of an insurgent while doing little to actually change the structure. ..."
"... Nonetheless, Trump is a potential problem for the neoliberal order for two reasons. First, unlike an Obama or a Clinton, he too clearly illuminates what is really at stake for power – wealth maximisation at any cost – and thereby risks unmasking the deception. And second, he is a retrograde step for the globalising power-structure. ..."
"... The neoliberal order prefers a Trump to a Bernie Sanders because the nativist insurgents are so much easier to tame. A Trump can be allowed to strut on his Twitter stage while the global power-structure constrains and undermines any promised moves that might threaten it. Trump the candidate was indifferent to Israel and wanted the US out of Syria. Trump the president has become Israel's biggest cheerleader and has launched US missiles at Syria. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is now so entrenched, so rapacious that even a moderate socialist like Corbyn is seen as a major threat. And unlike a Blair, Obama or Trump, Corbyn is much harder to tame because he has a grassroots movement behind him and to which he is ultimately accountable ..."
"... In the US, the neoliberal wing of the Democratic party prevented the left-insurgent candidate, Bernie Sanders, from contesting the presidency by rigging the system to keep him off the ballot paper ..."
"... How anti-semitism is being weaponised, not to protect Jews but to protect the neoliberal order, was made starkly clear this week when Corbyn criticised the financial elite that brought the west to the brink of economic ruin a decade ago, and will soon do so again unless stringent new regulations are introduced. Useful idiots like Stephen Pollard, editor of the rightwing Jewish Chronicle, saw a chance to revive the anti-semitism canard once again, accusing Corbyn of secretly meaning "Jews" when he actually spoke of bankers. It is a logic intended to make the neoliberal elite untouchable, cloaking them in a security blanket relying on the anti-semitism taboo. ..."
"... The weaponising of anti-semitism by the neoliberal order to protect its power risks turning Jews into collateral damage. It makes them another small or bigger drama in the increasingly desperate attempt to create a narrative that deflects attention from the real power-structure. ..."
"... And second, the effort to stitch together a narrative of Corbyn's anti-semitism out of non-existent cloth is likely to encourage more and more people to take a step back from the screen so that those unintelligible pixels can more easily be discerned as a smoking gun. The very preposterousness of the allegations, and the fact that they are taken so seriously by a political and media class selected for their submissiveness to the neoliberal order, accelerates the process by which these opinion-formers discredit themselves. Their authority wanes by the day, and as a result their usefulness to the power-structure rapidly diminishes. ..."
"... No one pays me to write these blog posts. If you appreciated it, or any of the others, please consider hitting the donate button in the right-hand margin (computer) or below (phone). ..."
In
my last
blog post I argued that power in our societies resides in structure, ideology and
narratives – supporting what we might loosely term our current "neoliberal order" –
rather than in individuals. Significantly, our political and media classes, who are of course
deeply embedded in this neoliberal structure, are key promoters of the very opposite idea: that
individuals or like-minded groups of people hold power; that they should, at least in theory,
be held accountable for the use and misuse of that power; and that meaningful change involves
replacing these individuals rather than fundamentally altering the power-structure they operate
within.
In other words, our political and media debates reduce to who should be held to
account for problems in the economy, the health and education systems, or the conduct of a war.
What is never discussed is whether flawed policies are really the fleeting responsibility of
individuals and political parties or symptoms of the current neoliberal malaise –
manifestations of an ideology that necessarily has goals, such as the pursuit of maximised
profit and endless economic growth, that are indifferent to other considerations, such as the
damage being done to life on our planet.
The [neoliberal] focus on individuals happens for a reason. It is designed to ensure
that the structure and ideological foundations of our societies remain invisible to us, the
public. The neoliberal order goes unquestioned – presumed, against the evidence of
history, to be permanent, fixed, unchallengeable.
So deep is this misdirection that even efforts to talk about real power become treacherous.
My words above might suggest that power is rather like a person, that it has intention and
will, that maybe it likes to deceive or play tricks. But none of that is true either.
Big
and little power
My difficulty conveying precisely what I mean, my need to resort to metaphor, reveals the
limitations of language and the necessarily narrow ideological horizons it imposes on anyone
who uses it. Intelligible language is not designed adequately to describe structure or power.
It prefers to particularise, to humanise, to specify, to individualise in ways that make
thinking in bigger, more critical ways near-impossible.
Language is on the side of those, like politicians and corporate journalists, who conceal
structure, who deal in narratives of the small-power of individuals rather than of the
big-power of structure and ideology. In what passes for news, the media offer a large stage for
powerful individuals to fight elections, pass legislation, take over businesses, start wars,
and a small stage for these same individuals to get their come-uppance, caught committing
crimes, lying, having affairs, getting drunk, and more generally embarrassing themselves.
These minor narratives conceal the fact that such individuals are groomed before they
ever gain access to power. Business leaders, senior politicians and agenda-setting journalists
reach their positions after proving themselves over and over again – not consciously but
through their unthinking compliance to the power-structure of our societies. They are
selected through their performances in exams at school and university, through training
programmes and indentures. They rise to the top because they are the most talented examples
of those who are blind or submissive to power, those who can think most cleverly without
thinking critically. Those who reliably deploy their skills where they are directed to do
so.
Their large and small dramas constitute what we call public life, whether politics, world
affairs or entertainment. To suggest that there are deeper processes at work, that the largest
of these dramas is not really large enough for us to gain insight into how power operates, is
to instantly be dismissed as paranoid, a fantasist, and – most damningly of all – a
conspiracy theorist.
These terms also serve the deception. They are intended to stop all thought about real
power. They are scare words used to prevent us, in a metaphor used in my previous post, from
stepping back from the screen. They are there to force us to stand so close we see only the
pixels, not the bigger picture.
Media makeover
The story of Britain's Labour party is a case in point, and was illustrated even before
Jeremy Corbyn became leader. Back in the 1990s Tony Blair reinvented the party as New Labour,
jettisoning ideas of socialism and class war, and inventing instead a "Third Way".
The idea that gained him access to power – personified in the media narrative of the
time as his meeting
with Rupert Murdoch on the mogul's Hayman Island – was that New Labour would
triangulate, find a middle way between the 1 per cent and the 99 per cent. The fact that the
meeting took place with Murdoch rather than anyone else signaled something significant: that
the power-structure needed a media makeover. It needed to be dressed in new garb.
In reality, Blair made Labour useful to power by re-styling the turbo-charged neoliberalism
Margaret Thatcher's Conservative party of the rich had unleashed. He made it look compatible
with social democracy. Blair put a gentler, kinder mask on neoliberalism's aggressive pursuit
of planet-destroying power – much as Barack Obama would do in the United States a decade
later, after the horrors of the Iraq invasion. Neither Blair nor Obama changed the substance of
our economic and political systems, but they did make them look deceptively attractive by
tinkering with social policy.
Were the neoliberal order laid bare – were the emperor to allow himself to be
stripped of his clothes – no one apart from a small psychopathic elite would vote for
neoliberalism's maintenance. So power is forced to repeatedly reinvent itself. It is like
the shape-shifting Mystique of the X-Men films, constantly altering its appearance to lull us
into a false sense of security. Power's goal is to keep looking like it has become something
new, something innovative. Because the power-structure does not want change, it has to find
front-men and women who can personify a transformation that is, in truth, entirely hollow.
Power can perform this stunt, as Blair did, by repackaging the same product –
neoliberalism – in prettier ideological wrapping. Or it can, as has happened in the US of
late, try a baser approach by adding a dash of identity politics. A black presidential
candidate (Obama) can offer hope, and a woman candidate (Hillary Clinton) can cast herself as
mother-saviour.
With this model in place, elections become an illusory contest between more transparent
and more opaque iterations of neoliberal power . In failing the 99 per cent, Obama so
woefully voided this strategy that large sections of voters turned their back on his intended
successor, the new makeover candidate Hillary Clinton. They saw through the role-playing. They
preferred, even if only reluctantly, the honest vulgarity of naked power represented by Trump
over the pretensions of Clinton's fakely compassionate politics.
Unstable politics
Despite its best efforts, neoliberalism is increasingly discredited in the eyes of large
sections of the electorate in the US and UK. Its attempts at concealment have grown jaded, its
strategy exhausted. It has reached the end-game, and that is why politics now looks so
unstable. "Insurgency" candidates in different guises are prospering.
Neoliberal power is distinctive because it seeks absolute power, and can achieve that
end only through global domination. Globalisation, the world as a plaything for a tiny elite to
asset-strip, is both its means and its end. Insurgents are therefore those who seek to reverse
the trend towards globalisation – or at least claim to. There are insurgents on both the
left and right.
If neoliberalism has to choose, it typically prefers an insurgent on the right to the left.
A Trump figure can usefully serve power too, because he dons the clothes of an insurgent
while doing little to actually change the structure.
Nonetheless, Trump is a potential problem for the neoliberal order for two reasons.
First, unlike an Obama or a Clinton, he too clearly illuminates what is really at stake for
power – wealth maximisation at any cost – and thereby risks unmasking the
deception. And second, he is a retrograde step for the globalising power-structure.
Neoliberalism has dragged capitalism out its nineteenth-century dependency on nation-states
into a twenty-first ideology that demands a global reach. Trump and other nativist leaders seek
a return to a supposed golden era of state-based capitalism, one that prefers to send our
children up chimneys if it prevents children from far-off lands arriving on our shores to do
the same.
The neoliberal order prefers a Trump to a Bernie Sanders because the nativist insurgents
are so much easier to tame. A Trump can be allowed to strut on his Twitter stage while the
global power-structure constrains and undermines any promised moves that might threaten it.
Trump the candidate was indifferent to Israel and wanted the US out of Syria. Trump the
president has become Israel's biggest cheerleader and has launched US missiles at
Syria.
Faustian pacts
The current power-structure is much more frightened of a left insurgency of the kind
represented by Corbyn in the UK. He and his supporters are trying to reverse the accommodations
with power made by Blair. And that is why he finds himself relentlessly assaulted from every
direction – from his political opponents; from his supposed political allies, including
most of his own parliamentary party; and most especially from the state-corporate media,
including its bogus left-liberal elements like the Guardian and the BBC.
The past three years of attacks on Corbyn are how power manifests itself, shows its hand,
when it is losing. It is a strategy of last resort. A Blair or an Obama arrive in power having
already made so many compromises behind the scenes that their original policies are largely
toothless. They have made Faustian pacts as a condition for being granted access to power. This
is variously described as pragmatism, moderation, realism. More accurately, it should be
characterised as betrayal.
It does not stop when they reach high office. Obama made a series of early errors, thinking
he would have room to maneuver in the Middle East. He made a speech in Cairo about a "New
Beginning" for the region. A short time later he would help to snuff out the Egyptian Arab
Spring that erupted close by, in Tahrir Square. Egypt's military, long subsidized by
Washington, were allowed to take back power.
Obama won the 2009 Nobel peace prize, before he had time to do anything, for his
international diplomacy. And yet he stepped up the war on terror, oversaw the rapid expansion
of a policy of extrajudicial assassinations by drone, and presided over the extension of the
Iraq regime-change operation to Libya and Syria.
And he threatened penalties for Israel over its illegal settlements policy – a
five-decade war crime that has gone completely unpunished by the international community. But
in practice his inaction allowed Israel to entrench its settlements to the point where
annexation of parts of the West Bank is now imminent.
Tame or destroy
Neoliberalism is now so entrenched, so rapacious that even a moderate socialist like
Corbyn is seen as a major threat. And unlike a Blair, Obama or Trump, Corbyn is much harder to
tame because he has a grassroots movement behind him and to which he is ultimately
accountable .
In the US, the neoliberal wing of the Democratic party prevented the left-insurgent
candidate, Bernie Sanders, from contesting the presidency by rigging the system to keep him off
the ballot paper . In the UK, Corbyn got past those structural defences by accident. He
scraped into the leadership race as the token "loony-left" candidate, indulged by the Labour
party bureaucracy as a way to demonstrate that the election was inclusive and fair. He was
never expected to win.
Once he was installed as leader, the power-structure had two choices: to tame him like
Blair, or destroy him before he stood a chance of reaching high office. For those with short
memories, it is worth recalling how those alternatives were weighed in Corbyn's first
months.
On the one hand, he was derided across the media for being shabbily dressed, for being
unpatriotic, for threatening national security, for being sexist. This was the campaign to tame
him. On the other, the Murdoch-owned Times newspaper, the house journal of the neoliberal
elite, gave a platform to an anonymous army general to warn that the British military would
never allow Corbyn to reach office. There would be an army-led
coup before he ever got near 10 Downing Street.
In a sign of how ineffectual these power-structures now are, none of this made much
difference to Corbyn's fortunes with the public. A truly insurgent candidate cannot be damaged
by attacks from the power-elite. That's why he is where he is, after all.
So those wedded to the power-structure among his own MPs tried to wage a second leadership
contest to unseat him. As a wave of new members signed up to bolster his ranks of supporters,
and thereby turned the party into the largest in Europe, Labour party bureaucrats stripped as
many as possible of their right to vote in the hope Corbyn could be made to lose. They failed
again. He won with an even bigger majority.
Redefining words
It was in this context that the neoliberal order has had to play its most high-stakes card
of all. It has accused Corbyn, a lifelong anti-racism activist, of being an anti-semite for
supporting the Palestinian cause, for preferring Palestinian rights over brutal Israeli
occupation. To make this charge plausible, words have had to be redefined: "anti-semitism" no
longer means simply a hatred of Jews, but includes criticism of Israel; "Zionist" no longer
refers to a political movement that prioritises the rights of Jews over the native Palestinian
population, but supposedly stands as sinister code for all Jews. Corbyn's own party has been
forced under relentless pressure to adopt these malicious reformulations of meaning.
How anti-semitism is being weaponised, not to protect Jews but to protect the neoliberal
order, was made starkly clear this week when Corbyn criticised the financial elite that brought
the west to the brink of economic ruin a decade ago, and will soon do so again unless stringent
new regulations are introduced. Useful idiots like Stephen Pollard, editor of the rightwing
Jewish Chronicle, saw a chance to revive the anti-semitism canard once again, accusing Corbyn of
secretly meaning "Jews" when he actually spoke of bankers. It is a logic intended to make the
neoliberal elite untouchable, cloaking them in a security blanket relying on the anti-semitism
taboo.
Almost the entire Westminister political class and the entire corporate media class,
including the most prominent journalists in the left-liberal media, have reached the same
preposterous conclusion about Corbyn. Whatever the evidence in front of their and our eyes, he
is now roundly declared an
anti-semite . Up is now down, and day is night.
High-stakes strategy
This strategy is high stakes and dangerous for two reasons.
First, it risks creating the very problem it claims to be defending against. By crying wolf
continuously about Corbyn's supposed anti-semitism without any tangible evidence for it, and by
making an unfounded charge of anti-semitism the yardstick for judging Corbyn's competence for
office rather than any of his stated policies, the real anti-semite's argument begins to sound
more plausible.
In what could become self-fulfilling prophecy, the anti-semitic right's long-standing ideas
about Jewish cabals controlling the media and pulling levers behind the scenes could start to
resonate with an increasingly disillusioned and frustrated public. The weaponising of
anti-semitism by the neoliberal order to protect its power risks turning Jews into collateral
damage. It makes them another small or bigger drama in the increasingly desperate attempt to
create a narrative that deflects attention from the real power-structure.
And second, the effort to stitch together a narrative of Corbyn's anti-semitism out of
non-existent cloth is likely to encourage more and more people to take a step back from the
screen so that those unintelligible pixels can more easily be discerned as a smoking gun. The
very preposterousness of the allegations, and the fact that they are taken so seriously by a
political and media class selected for their submissiveness to the neoliberal order,
accelerates the process by which these opinion-formers discredit themselves. Their authority
wanes by the day, and as a result their usefulness to the power-structure rapidly
diminishes.
This is where we are now: in the final stages of a busted system that is clinging on to
credibility by its fingernails. Sooner or later, its grip will be lost and it will plunge into
the abyss. We will wonder how we ever fell for any of its deceptions.
In the meantime, we must get on with the urgent task of liberating our minds, of undoing the
toxic mental and emotional training we were subjected to, of critiquing and deriding those
whose job is to enforce the corrupt orthodoxy, and of replotting a course towards a future that
saves the human species from impending extinction.
No one pays me to write these blog posts. If you appreciated it, or any of the others,
please consider hitting the donate button in the right-hand margin (computer) or below
(phone).capitalism , corporations , Jeremy Corbyn
Like bolshevism this secular regions is to a large extent is a denial of Christianity. While Bolshevism is closer to the Islam,
Neoliberalism is closer to Judaism.
The idea of " Homo economicus " -- a person who in all
his decisions is governed by self-interest and greed is bunk.
Notable quotes:
"... There is not a shred of logical sense in neoliberalism. You're doing what the fundamentalists do... they talk about what neoliberalism is in theory whilst completely ignoring what it is in practice. ..."
"... In theory the banks should have been allowed to go bust, but the consequences where deemed too high (as they inevitable are). The result is socialism for the rich using the poor as the excuse, which is the reality of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is based on the thought that you get as much freedom as you can pay for, otherwise you can just pay... like everyone else. In Asia and South America it has been the economic preference of dictators that pushes profit upwards and responsibility down, just like it does here. ..."
"... We all probably know the answer to this. In order to maintain the consent necessary to create inequality in their own interests the neoliberals have to tell big lies, and keep repeating them until they appear to be the truth. They've gotten so damn good at it. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is a modern curse. Everything about it is bad and until we're free of it, it will only ever keep trying to turn us into indentured labourers. ..."
"... It's acolytes are required to blind themselves to logic and reason to such a degree they resemble Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses more than people with any sort of coherent political ideology, because that's what neoliberalism actually is... a cult of the rich, for the rich, by the rich... and it's followers in the general population are nothing but moron familiars hoping one day to be made a fully fledged bastard ..."
"... Who could look at the way markets function and conclude there's any freedom? Only a neoliberal cult member. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be dissuaded. They cannot be persuaded. Only the market knows best, and the fact that the market is a corrupt, self serving whore is completely ignored by the ideology of their Church. ..."
Unless you are completely confused by what neoliberalism is there is not a shred of logical sense in this.
There is not a shred of logical sense in neoliberalism. You're doing what the fundamentalists do... they talk about what neoliberalism
is in theory whilst completely ignoring what it is in practice.
In theory the banks should have been allowed to go bust, but the consequences where deemed too high (as they inevitable
are). The result is socialism for the rich using the poor as the excuse, which is the reality of neoliberalism.
Savers in a neoliberal society are lambs to the slaughter. Thatcher "revitalised" banking, while everything else withered and
died.
Neoliberalism is based on the thought of personal freedom, communism is definitely not. Neoliberalist policies have lifted
millions of people out of poverty in Asia and South America.
Neoliberalism is based on the thought that you get as much freedom as you can pay for, otherwise you can just pay... like
everyone else. In Asia and South America it has been the economic preference of dictators that pushes profit upwards and responsibility
down, just like it does here.
I find it ironic that it now has 5 year plans that absolutely must not be deviated from, massive state intervention in markets
(QE, housing policy, tax credits... insert where applicable), and advocates large scale central planning even as it denies reality,
and makes the announcement from a tractor factory.
Neoliberalism is a blight... a cancer on humanity... a massive lie told by rich people and believed only by peasants happy
to be thrown a turnip. In theory it's one thing, the reality is entirely different. Until we're rid of it, we're all it's slaves.
It's an abhorrent cult that comes up with purest bilge like expansionary fiscal contraction to keep all the money in the hands
of the rich.
Why, you have to ask yourself, is this vast implausibility, this sheer unsustainability, not blindingly obvious to all?
We all probably know the answer to this. In order to maintain the consent necessary to create inequality in their own interests
the neoliberals have to tell big lies, and keep repeating them until they appear to be the truth. They've gotten so damn good
at it.
Neoliberalism is a modern curse. Everything about it is bad and until we're free of it, it
will only ever keep trying to turn us into indentured labourers.
It's acolytes are required
to blind themselves to logic and reason to such a degree they resemble Scientologists or
Jehovah's Witnesses more than people with any sort of coherent political ideology, because
that's what neoliberalism actually is... a cult of the rich, for the rich, by the rich... and
it's followers in the general population are nothing but moron familiars hoping one day to be
made a fully fledged bastard.
Who could look at the way markets function and conclude there's any freedom? Only a
neoliberal cult member. They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be dissuaded. They cannot
be persuaded. Only the market knows best, and the fact that the market is a corrupt, self
serving whore is completely ignored by the ideology of their Church.
It's subsumed the entire planet, and waiting for them to see sense is a hopeless cause. In
the end it'll probably take violence to rid us of the Neoliberal parasite... the turn of the
century plague.
How many alternative economic systems would you say have been given a fair trial under
reasonably favorable circumstances?
A good question. Answer: admittedly, not a huge number - but not none either. Feudalism
held sway in the middle ages and mercantilism in the 18th century, before both fell out of
fashion. In the 20th century Russia stuck with communism for 74 years, and many other
countries tried it for a while. At one time (around 1949-89) there were enough countries in
the communist block for us to be able to say that they at least had a fair chance to make it
work - that is, if it didn't work, they can't really blame it on the rest of the world
ganging up on them.
Lately, serious challengers to the global economic order have been more isolated
(Venzuela, Cuba, North Korea?) - so maybe you could argue that, if they are struggling, it is
because they have been unfairly ganged up on. But then again, aren't they pursuing a
version of socialism that has close affinities to that tried in the Soviet Union?
The problem with giving any novel political idea a really extended trial is that you have
to try it out on live human beings. This means that, once a critical mass of data has built
up that indicates a political idea doesn't work out as hoped, then people inevitably lose the
will to try that idea again.
So my question is: are critics of the current world economic order able to spell out
exactly how their proposed alternative would differ from Soviet-style socialism?
This post is a variant of "fake prosperity" -- yet another neoliberal myth. Also known as
"rising tidelift all boats"
The improvement of the standard of living in 90th was mainly due to economic plunder of xUSSR
and Eastern Europe as well as well as communication revolution happening simultaneously. The
period from 1990 to 2000 is known as "Triumphal March of Neoliberalism". Aftger year 200
neoliberalism went into recession and in 2008 in deep crisis. The neoliberal ideology was dead by
2008.
Indeed. That was in the time of feudalism and mercantilism.
No, it was as recently as WW2 more or less. After that it followed a confusing
period where social and political freedoms darted ahead up to the '80s when the economic
freedoms started being championed by the right: Thatcher, Reagan, etc.
That saw a liberalisation of trade and an explosive growth in international trade with
huge benefits for the whole world: developing countries like the Asian dragons have seen
their standards of living skyrocket and practically they can't get up with the developed
countries in one generation. China, and India to an extent, is following on that path with
pretty good results.
As the same time the developed countries saw a huge improvement in their standard of
living with products and services available at incredible prices. Even the countries that did
not get on this yet are benefiting and the fact that starvation in the world is less of a
problem is the proof of that for example.
The response should be a wholesale reevaluation of the way in which wealth is created
and distributed around the globe
But we know already how that is done: voluntary transactions among free agents.
That's called a free market and it is by far the most efficient way to produce wealth
humanity has ever known. Sure, we tried other methods (slavery, forced labour, communal
entities, government controlled economies, tribal economies, etc.) but nothing worked as well
as free markets.
The calls for governments' intervention in the economy is misguided and counterproductive.
They already extract about 50% of all wealth created in this country. That's way too much
since most of the money taken by governments is money diverted from productive use.
Wrong. Traditional liberalism supported both social and economic freedoms. That included
support for most of the civil rights and freedoms we enjoy today AND free trade and free
investments.
Indeed. That was in the time of feudalism and mercantilism.
I take this opportunity to draw everyone's attention to a Finnish theorist and proponent
of liberal economical and political thinking, whose treatise on liberal national economy
preceded Adam Smith by 11 years: Anders Chydenius (1729-1803).
Margaret Thatcher left office 23 years ago. The de-regulation of the City occurred in
1986, 27 years ago. Since then UK GDP has more than doubled, inflation and unemployment are
far lower, and the numbers living in extreme poverty have fallen dramatically.
This is an attractive but idealistinc notion, because the person destiny often is shaped by
forces beyond his control. Like Great Depression or WWII. The proper idea is that the society as
a whole serves as a "social security" mechanism to prevent worst outcomes. At the same time
neoliberalism accept bailout for financial sector and even demand them for goverment.
@dmckm - Nobody is owed a good living in this world. That's what freedom means: one is free
to chose the best way to make a living. Are you saying that by forcing people to pay you
something they don't want to is freedom?
No market is 'Free'. Free markets do not exist. Markets are there for those with a vested
interest. i.e. the banksters. Note the growth of Hedge funds or slush funds for the rich.
Neoliberalism like Bolshevism is based on brainwashing and propaganda. In this case by
bought by financial elite and controlled by intelligence agencies MSM.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism? This is not just a financial agenda. This a highly organized multi armed counterculture operation to force us, including Ms Orr [unless she has...connections] into what Terence McKenna [who was in on it] termed the `Archaic Revival'. That is - you and me [and Ms Orr] - our - return to the medieval dark ages, if we indeed survive that far. ..."
"... The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. ..."
"... A free market larger than a boot fair has never existed. A market can never have power, it's just a market after all. It's the people in the market that have power... or some of them... the few... have it disproportionately compared to others, and straight away the market isn't free. ..."
"... It's only even approximately free when properly regulated, but that's anathema to market fundamentalists so they end up with a market run for the benefit of vested interests that they will claim is "free" until their dying breath. ..."
"... Power belongs with democratically elected governments, not people in markets responsible only to themselves. Amazing that people still think as you do after all that's happened. ..."
@taxhaven - I love this "free markets" expression, but can we really have free markets please
then? This means that no taxpayer money is to be spent to bail out the capitalist bankers
when things so sour.
It also means that there is completely free movement of labor so I as an employer should
be able to hire anyone I like for your job and pay the wage that the replacement is willing
to take i.e. tough luck to you if the person is more qualified and is willing to work for
less but does not have the work visa because in free markets there will be no such things as
work permits.
Neoliberalism has spawned a financial elite who hold governments to ransom
Neoliberalism? This is not just a financial agenda. This a highly organized multi
armed counterculture operation to force us, including Ms Orr [unless she has...connections]
into what Terence McKenna [who was in on it] termed the `Archaic Revival'. That is - you and
me [and Ms Orr] - our - return to the medieval dark ages, if we indeed survive that
far.
The same names come up time and time again. One of them being, father of propaganda,
Edward Bernays.
Bernays wrote what can be seen as a virtual Mission Statement for anyone wishing to bring
about a "counterculture." In the opening paragraph of his book Propaganda he wrote:
".. The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions
of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this
unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling
power of our country. We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas
suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.
This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organised. Vast
numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a
smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere
of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by
the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social
patterns of the masses.
It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind..."[28]
Bernays' family background made him well suited to "control the public mind." He was the
double nephew of psychoanalysis pioneer Sigmund Freud. His mother was Freud's sister Anna,
and his father was Ely Bernays, brother of Freud's wife Martha Bernays.
about being permitted to engage in voluntary exchange of goods and services with others,
unmolested.
And if we ever had that, would it make the ideal society?
A free market larger than a boot fair has never existed. A market can never have power,
it's just a market after all. It's the people in the market that have power... or some of
them... the few... have it disproportionately compared to others, and straight away the
market isn't free.
It's only even approximately free when properly regulated, but that's
anathema to market fundamentalists so they end up with a market run for the benefit of vested
interests that they will claim is "free" until their dying breath.
Power belongs with democratically elected governments, not people in markets responsible
only to themselves. Amazing that people still think as you do after all that's happened.
The evidence of social decay in America is becoming more visible. As other countries
continue to show increases in life expectancy, the US continues its deterioration.
Life expectancy in the US fell to 78.6 years in 2017, a o.1 year fall from 2016 and a 0.3
year decline from the peak.
Overdose deaths reached a new high in 2017, topping 70,000, while the suicide rate
increased by 3.7%, the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics reports.
Dr. Robert Redfield, CDC director, called the trend tragic and troubling. "Life expectancy
gives us a snapshot of the Nation's overall health and these sobering statistics are a wakeup
call that we are losing too many Americans, too early and too often, to conditions that are
preventable," he wrote in a statement.
While this assessment is technically correct, it is too superficial in seeing the rising
rate of what Angus Deaton and Ann Case called "deaths of despair" as a health problem, rather
than symptoms of much deeper societal ills. Americans take antidepressants at a higher rate
than any country in the world. The average job tenure is a mere 4.4 years. In my youth, if you
changed jobs in less than seven or eight years, you were seen as an opportunist or probably
poor performer. The near impossibility of getting a new job if you are over 40 and the fact
that outside hot fields, young people can also find it hard to get work commensurate with their
education and experience, means that those who do have jobs can be and are exploited by their
employers. Amazon is the most visible symbol of that, working warehouse workers at a deadly
pace, and regularly reducing even white collar males regularly to tears.
On top of that, nuclear families, weakened communities, plus the neoliberal expectation that
individuals be willing to move to find work means that many Americans have shallow personal
networks, and that means less support if one suffers career or financial setbacks.
But the big driver, which the mainstream press is unwilling to acknowledge, is that highly
unequal societies are unhealthy societies. We published this section from a Financial Times
comment by Michael Prowse in 2007, and it can't be
repeated often enough :
Those who would deny a link between health and inequality must first grapple with the
following paradox. There is a strong relationship between income and health within countries.
In any nation you will find that people on high incomes tend to live longer and have fewer
chronic illnesses than people on low incomes.
Yet, if you look for differences between countries, the relationship between income and
health largely disintegrates. Rich Americans, for instance, are healthier on average than
poor Americans, as measured by life expectancy. But, although the US is a much richer country
than, say, Greece, Americans on average have a lower life expectancy than Greeks. More
income, it seems, gives you a health advantage with respect to your fellow citizens, but not
with respect to people living in other countries .
Once a floor standard of living is attained, people tend to be healthier when three
conditions hold: they are valued and respected by others; they feel 'in control' in their
work and home lives; and they enjoy a dense network of social contacts. Economically unequal
societies tend to do poorly in all three respects: they tend to be characterised by big
status differences, by big differences in people's sense of control and by low levels of
civic participation .
Unequal societies, in other words, will remain unhealthy societies – and also
unhappy societies – no matter how wealthy they become. Their advocates – those
who see no reason whatever to curb ever-widening income differentials – have a lot of
explaining to do.
The stats first. They tell a clear story: Americans now live shorter lives than men and
women in most of the rest of the developed world. And that gap is growing.
Back in 1990, shouts
a new study published last week in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical
Association, the United States ranked just 20th on life expectancy among the world's 34
industrial nations. The United States now ranks 27th -- despite spending much more on health
care than any other nation.
Americans, notes an editorial the
journal ran to accompany the study, are losing ground globally "by every" health measure.
Why such poor performance? Media reports on last week's new
State of U.S. Health study hit all the usual suspects: poor diet, poor access to
affordable health care, poor personal health habits, and just plain poverty.
In the Wall Street Journal, for instance, a chief wellness officer in Ohio opined
that if Americans exercised more and ate and smoked less, the United States would surely
start moving up in the global health rankings.
But many epidemiologists -- scientists who study health outcomes -- have their doubts.
They point out that the United States ranked as one of the world's healthiest nations in the
1950s, a time when Americans smoked heavily, ate a diet that would horrify any 21st-century
nutritionist, and hardly ever exercised.
Poor Americans, then as now, had chronic problems accessing health care. But poverty,
epidemiologists note, can't explain why fully insured middle-income Americans today have
significantly worse health outcomes than middle-income people in other rich nations.
The University of Washington's Dr. Stephen Bezruchka
has been tracking these outcomes since the 1990s. The new research published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association, Bezruchka told Too Much last week, should worry
Americans at all income levels.
"Even if we are rich, college-educated, white-skinned, and practice all the right health
behaviors," he notes, "similar people in other rich nations will live longer."
A dozen years ago, Bezruchka
published in Newsweek the first mass-media commentary, at least in the United States, to
challenge the conventional take on poor U.S. global health rankings.
To really understand America's poor health standing globally, epidemiologists like
Bezruchka posit, we need to look at "the social determinants of health," those social and
economic realities that define our daily lives.
None of these determinants matter more, these researchers contend, than the level of a
society's economic inequality, the divide between the affluent and everyone else. Over 170
studies worldwide have so far linked income inequality to health outcomes. The more
unequal a society, the studies show, the more unhealthy most everyone in it -- and not the
poor alone.
Just how does inequality translate into unhealthy outcomes? Growing numbers of researchers
place the blame on stress. The more inequality in a society, the more stress on a daily
level. Chronic stress, over time, wears down our immune systems and leaves us more vulnerable
to disease.
Data the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released on Thursday show life
expectancy fell by one-tenth of a year, to 78.6 years, pushed down by the sharpest annual
increase in suicides in nearly a decade and a continued rise in deaths from powerful opioid
drugs like fentanyl. Influenza, pneumonia and diabetes also factored into last year's
increase.
Economists and public-health experts consider life expectancy to be an important measure
of a nation's prosperity. The 2017 data paint a dark picture of health and well-being in the
U.S., reflecting the effects of addiction and despair, particularly among young and
middle-aged adults, as well as diseases plaguing an aging population and people with lower
access to health care
Life expectancy is 84.1 years in Japan and 83.7 years in Switzerland, first and second in
the most-recent ranking by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The
U.S. ranks 29th..
White men and women fared the worst, along with black men, all of whom experienced
increases in death rates. Death rates rose in particular for adults ages 25 to 44, and
suicide rates are highest among people in the nation's most rural areas. On the other hand,
deaths declined for black and Hispanic women, and remained the same for Hispanic men .
Earlier this century, the steady and robust decline in heart-disease deaths more than
offset the rising number from drugs and suicide, Dr. Anderson said. Now, "those declines
aren't there anymore," he said, and the drug and suicide deaths account for many years of
life lost because they occur mostly in young to middle-aged adults.
While progress against deaths from heart disease has stalled, cancer deaths -- the
nation's No. 2 killer -- are continuing a steady decline that began in the 1990s, Dr.
Anderson said. "That's kind of our saving grace," he said. "Without those declines, we'd see
a much bigger drop in life expectancy."
Suicides rose 3.7% in 2017, accelerating an increase in rates since 1999, the CDC said.
The gap in deaths by suicide widened starkly between cities and the most rural areas between
1999 and 2017, the data show. The rate is now far higher in rural areas. "There's a much
wider spread," Dr. Hedegaard said.
"This is extremely discouraging," Christine Moutier, chief medical officer of the American
Foundation for Suicide Prevention, said of the suicide-rate increase. Studies show that
traumas such as economic difficulties or natural disasters, along with access to lethal means
including guns and opioid drugs, and lack of access to care can affect suicide rates, she
said. More accurate recording of deaths may also have added to the numbers, she said.
Japan leads the pack in life expectancy and pretty much every other measure of social well
being. Yet when its financial bubbles were bigger than the ones in the US pre our crisis, and
it's on its way to having a lost three decades of growth. On top of that, Japan has one of the
worst demographic crunches in the world, in terms of the aging of its population. So how it is
that Japan is coping well with decline, while the US is getting sicker in many ways (mental
health, obesity, falling expectancy)?
It's easy to hand-wave by saying "Japanese culture," but I see the causes as more specific.
The Japanese have always given high employment top priority in their economic planning.
Entrepreneurs are revered for creating jobs, not for getting rich. Similarly, Japan was long
criticized by international economist types for having an inefficient retail sector (lots of
small local shops), when they missed the point: that was one way of increasing employment, plus
Japanese like having tight local communities.
After their crisis, Japanese companies went to considerable lengths to preserve jobs, such
as by having senior people taking pay cuts and longer term, lowering the already not that large
gap between entry and top level compensation. The adoption of second-class workers (long-term
temps called "freeters") was seen as less than ideal, since these workers would never become
true members of the company community, but it was better than further reducing employment.
Contrast that to our crisis response. We reported in 2013 that
the top 1% got 121% of the income gains after the crisis. The very top echelon did better
at the expense of everyone else. Longer term, lower-income earners have fallen behind. From a
2017 MarketWatch story, quoting a World Economic Forum report: "America has experienced 'a
complete collapse of the bottom 50 percent income share in the U.S. between 1978 to 2015.'"
There is a lot of other data that supports the same point: inequality continues to widen in
America. The areas that are taking the worst hits are states like West Virginia and Ohio that
have been hit hard by deindustrialization. But the elites are removed in their glamorous cities
and manage not to notice the conditions when they transit through the rest of America. They
should consider themselves lucky that America's downtrodden are taking out their misery more on
themselves than on their betters.
God, this is so depressing to read. The worse aspect of it is that it never had to be this
way but that these deaths were simply 'collateral damage' to the social and economic changes
in America since the 1970s – changes by choice. This seems to be a slow motion move to
replicate what Russia went through back in the 1990s which led to the unnecessary, premature
deaths of millions of its people. Dmitry Orlov has a lot to say about the subject of collapse
and there is a long page in which Orlov talks about how Russia got through these bad times
while comparing it with America as he lives there now. For those interested, it is at-
What gets me most is how these deaths are basically anonymous and are not really
remembered. When AIDS was ravishing the gay community decades ago, one way they got people to
appreciate the numbers of deaths was the AIDS Memorial Quilt which ended up weighing over 50
tons. It is a shame that there can not be an equivalent project for all these deaths of
despair.
There were pictures in the Wall Street Journal article I didn't pull over due to copyright
issues, but it did show people commemorating these deaths Captions:
People in Largo, Fla., hold candles at a vigil on Oct. 17 to remember the thousands who
succumbed to opioid abuse in their community.
More than 1,000 backpacks containing belongings of suicide victims and letters with
information about them are scattered across a lawn during a demonstration at the University
of Tennessee at Chattanooga on March 22.
But to your point, these seem isolated and are not getting press coverage at anywhere near
the level of the AIDS crisis.
It focuses too much on peak oil. As if the social collapse of the United States (and the
Soviet Union) was some kind of natural consequence of resources dryinf out instead of a
premeditated looting.
Orlov's posts on how Russians survived the collapse is a small masterpiece. I read it a
couple of years back and it affected me greatly. I just reread it, thanks, Rev Kev, and it
seems even more relevant now.
Small gems: Money becomes useless: items or services that can be swapped are paramount.
Bottles of alcohol, fresh homegrown veggies (and pot), I re-fashion your old suit and you fix
my broken window.
Social networks keep you alive. Know and be on good terms with your neighbors. Communal
gardens keep you fed.
War-hardened men (and the women who love them), who thrive on violence abound. They will
either be hired as security or rove about as free-lancers. A community is better able either
to hire them, or defend against them.
Our ancestors lived and thrived without: central heating, electric lights, hot and cold
running water, flush toilets, garbage collection, the Internet. We can too; it just takes
forethought and planning. Densely packed cities without these amenities are hell.
Cultivate an attitude of disdain for the 'normal' things that society values, especially
if you are a middle-aged male; career, large house and SUV, foreign vacations, a regular
salary. Enjoy contemplating nature. When the former disappear, you have the latter to fall
back upon. And consider a second career as a recycler of abandoned buildings, or a distiller
of potatoes. (Think of all the Medieval structures built from crumbling Roman edifices.)
Russians, in many ways, had more resilience built in to their system: housing was
State-owned, so there was less homelessness. Private automobiles were relatively rare, but
public transportation was wide-spread and remained in good-running order. Minimal universal
health care existed.
Cease from trying, futilely, to change the System. Ain't gonna happen. Instead, prepare to
survive, if only just, the coming dismantling.
> Once a floor standard of living is attained, people tend to be healthier when three
conditions hold: they are valued and respected by others; they feel 'in control' in their
work and home lives; and they enjoy a dense network of social contacts.
"Sapolsky: We belong to multiple hierarchies, and you may have the worst job in your
corporation and no autonomy and control and predictability, but you're the captain of the
company softball team that year and you'd better bet you are going to have all sorts of
psychological means to decide it's just a job, nine to five, that's not what the world is
about. What the world's about is softball. I'm the head of my team, people look up to me, and
you come out of that deciding you are on top of the hierarchy that matters to you."
iirc, there was a perspective of some economists that infinite groaf could be carried by
the creative, emergent, and infinite wants of homo sapiens. But that creates compounding
deprivations, never enough time, money, resources. With the 2:1 ratio of loss aversion, what
is compounded are bad affects.
That 'dense network of social contacts' means smaller groups with symmetric interactions. The multiple
dominance heirarchies is the healthy version of creative emergence, but supplying needs, not
creating wants.
I think that one of the most valuable tools used by government in the Great Depression was
the CCC, WPA, and TVA set of programs that provided jobs to people while they created
valuable infrastructure and art. How many of those people could go back to the dams or state
parks and tell their spouses and kids that "I helped build that." During a time of despair,
it was a way of making people believe they had value.
Today, it would be viewed as a waste of money that could be better spent on the military
or another tax cut for the wealthy.
I'd mentioned some wrongheaded policies of Sequoia NP of 90 years ago yesterday, and they
seem ridiculous in retrospect, and we no longer treat natural places as ad hoc zoos, where
everybody gets to see the dancing bears @ a given hour.
Our methodology as far as our rapport with fire was just as stupid, but we've really done
nothing to repair our relationship with trees and the forests they hang out in.
There's an abundance of physical labor needed to clear out the duff, the deadfalls and
assorted debris from huge swaths of guaranteed employment until the job is done, which could
take awhile.
There's really few graft possibilities though, we're talking chainsaws, Pulaskis, never
ending burn pile action and lots of sweat equity. If KBR wanted to be in charge of
backcountry camps housing crews, that'd be ok, they'd be doing something useful for a
change.
Yes, why do you think video games appeal so much to young males? Because of the pixels?
What these gamers are really after is the ability to excel in a niche hierarchy. It doesn't
(usually) appeal to females as much as more traditional kinds of success but it serves a
psychological need.
A traitorous ruling class that has sold out its workers in favor of foreign workers.
And it's very lucrative – the Walton's fortune was made by being an agent of
communist Chinese manufacturers. In direct competition with US manufacturers. Does this not
seem like treason to you?
The word 'communist' in relation to the Chinese government and party is void of content.
'Communist' in the current Chinese context is legacy branding, nothing more. Its use in this
comment is inflammatory, as is the too-loose bandying of 'treason'. The Waltons are loyal to
their class (however fierce their disputes may be with rival oligarch factions), and since
the state exists to serve the interests of their class, how can they be traitors to the
state?
"Communist" is what they call themselves. They're totalitarians. Which is what most people
think "communist" means – because all countries that called themselves communist used
authoritarian rule. Methinks you might be a marxist idealist. Offended by the misuse of your
ideal State word by totalitarians.
Similarly, I used "treason" in the sense of acting against the interests of the citizens,
not in the sense of a crime against the state. You clearly believe the state to be
representative of only the ruling class. And I don't disagree wrt the USA and its imperial
machine. Which would make the State treasonous, according to the sense of the word I
used.
One could always say communism is an end point developed through a process preceded by
socialism and before that capitalism which replaces feudalism. The idea being Chinese
Communists, the rich Chinese have bug out spots for a reason, believe Mao and the Soviets
moved too quickly skipping a Marxist historical epoch.
The Communist Party officially is always a vanguard for the future society not the
Communist society. Phrases such as "under communism" aren't Soviet features as much as they
are propaganda from the West.
When the Reds were the only game in town, the greedy class joined the CCP, but since 1991,
they skipped signing up, leaving believers in control. What the party congress believes is
probably important.
As far as branding goes, all Communists are branded because the are all vanguard parties,
not parties of blocs or even current populations. Star Trek is the only communist society.
The Soviet thinkers definitely wrote about what an Ideal society would look like, the nature
of work, and self and societal improvement.
Overthrowing a long established government shouldn't be done for light and transient
reasons, and Xi has seemed to be concerned with the demands of the party congress. The party
at large doesn't have a single voice to rally behind which makes it difficult to overthrow a
government.
the word is "communist". The gov't isn't anything of the sort these days. Isn't the
chinese gov't of today "fascist". just like the national socialists of the german stripe?
They are the state that may be lord over controller of private institutions, and ruler of
other state institutions, all intermixed into what is "the chinese economy". They allow the
private wealth creation in a controlled sense. that is state function serving private wealth.
and if you are a party loyal, private wealth may come to you some day too.
It is just another part of the world trend "everyone is turning into full fledged
fascists"
No wonder people in the states are dying earlier.. to get back on topic
Last night, my wife and I took our boys to meet Santa at my older son's school. Elementary
school in Mississippi. The town is an outer suburb of Memphis. A mile east of the town you
are in rural Mississippi. I noticed 2 or 3 parents with visible drug addiction issues. These
folks were still people. Want their kids to see Santa and have a better life. The country
doesn't care.
I'll guess that you're near Byhalia. Happy memories of visiting family there from late
forties through sixties. Wonder what its like now – how the economic changes have
affected it.
Byhalia is a little further down highway 78. Kids from Byhalia drive up to Olive Branch to
go to a McDonald's and other fast food. Things may be changing because they just completed an
outer interstate loop that passes close by Byhalia. Byhalia was just in news a couple months
ago because a kid died during a football game. People were up in arms about no doctor at game
and a 30 to 40 minute drive to closest hospital. There aren't any doctors offices in Byhalia.
Then toxicology report came back. Kid had cocaine in his system. Holly Springs and Byhalia
area are big drug smuggling area. Close to Memphis and it's distribution network, but across
state line in poor rural Mississippi. NBA players linked to this area and smuggling
networks.
I'm always amazed @ the suicide by gun numbers, as it strikes me as a not so fool proof
way of checking out, exacerbated by perhaps dying slowly in a painful way?
Oh, and bloody, very much so.
Fentanyl seems an easier way out, you just drift into the ether and leave a presentable
corpse for everybody you knew, who all wonder if they could have done something to stop it
from happening, posthaste.
It's cheap and fairly efficient, and the drug way out can be tricky. Silent film legend,
Lupe Valez, is the famed example of suicide by drugs gone wrong. She still died but not on
her own terms because the sleeping pills she took didn't react well with her last meal.
How many people have tried to check out and had it not work is something to consider.
The level of denial people are capable of can be daunting.
1). My dentist who I think is Republican told me when I brought up Medicare for all said
"I don't think we can afford Medicare for all." This was not an immediate response to my
raising the topic, but something he told me after several visits and having thought about
what I had said and around the time Sanders got media coverage introducing a Medicare for all
bill (I was getting a crown and required many visits). Talking to your dentist can be a one
sided conversation for obvious reasons, but I thought "don't you mean we can't afford NOT to
have Medicare for all?"
2). A co-worker of mine who is African American. When I said U.S. life expectancy is
falling, this is a sign of extreme policy failure and should affect how we rate the ACA (read
that here, of course!) replied "You're assuming health has an impact on life expectancy." I
was stunned and didn't know what to say for a second and finally said "yes, absolutely."
These are the types that are more than happy to hand the place over to the next Bolsonaro
if only to protect the status gap between themselves and those beneath them.
They also "hand the place over" when the Bolsonaro types tell everyone they have the
solution and the opposition party is tainted by austerity and corruption.
"You're assuming health has an impact on life expectancy"
I have absolutely no idea how I would respond to this either. Was this comment by this
person some kind of built in knee-jerk response to criticism of the ACA/Obama?
actually you are assuming health coverage, even if it was real coverage for what one
needed, has that much of an impact on life expectancy and from what I've read it probably
doesn't compared to things like poverty *regardless* of health coverage. Because the greatest
link to say heart attacks is with poverty (not diet etc.)
At this point though it doesn't even make sense to talk about the ACA circa now and say
it's Obama's ACA, it wasn't that great to begin with. But Trump has made it worse.
My dentist who I think is Republican told me when I brought up Medicare for all said
"I don't think we can afford Medicare for all."
When I brought up Medicare for All to my dentist, after listening to him describe some of
his ER work where he claims to routinely see people who have intentionally damaged their
teeth in order to obtain painkillers (which he is not allowed to proscribe to them
regardless), he said he would never want to have the kind of inferior health care they have
"in Europe." He seemed genuinely surprised when I reported that my wife had done most of a
pregnancy in Italy in the mid-90s and got pre-natal care that was better than anything she
ever got in this country.
My dentist is definitely a Repub. And he socializes with other medical professionals,
which I presume gives him a very distorted image of the health care system. I often hear him
railing against the idiotic dictates of insurance companies and he seems genuinely proud
that, unlike the inscrutable and BS pricing of hospitals, dentists have to have
straightforward pricing because many people do pay 100% out of pocket (so he says).
This is a part of the 10% that is going to be very hard to reach. But I tell him
socialists need dental care too and so he will always have work even after we take over.
Suicide can be a rational and sensible choice.
Bluntly, if the quality of your life is shitty and not going to improve why stick around?
That the reason so many people's lives are bad enough that they decide death is preferable to
life is societal doesn't change their circumstances.
If you are old and sick, barely surviving financially or in poor health and unable to afford
care suicide might look like your best alternative.
The "Hemlock Society" has been around for quite a while, that its membership is growing in
the short term says a great deal about America.
Suicide is never rational. It is arrogance that one could weigh the pros and cons of
suicide like they think the have all the pertinent information. The only truth is that we
have no idea what happens when we die or if there is some kind of experience that continues
in a form that might not be a personal consciousness. Also, why don't you see the decision to
die is made under duress and therefor invalid like signing a contract with a gun pointed at
your head? There were several times in my life that I determined "the quality of [my] life is
shitty and not going to improve [so] why stick around", but yet, I became better off going
through the struggle. As a result I have made others lives better with the understanding I
have gained going through the Shaman's journey.
By considering suicide you are considering trading a known (suffering) for an unknown
(Death). In what way can that be considered rational?
The sad fact is that we spend our whole lives avoiding suffering and never take the time
to understand it. Opioids, all drugs, are a route to avoid suffering, to avoid looking at our
trauma. Materialism is about avoiding our suffering. Suicide is materialistic because it
supposes there is a mind that we can stop.
But even in the Buddhist centers I visit it has turned away from the spiritual and people
go there not to understand their suffering, but rather only to escape it.
American society does not have an economic problem, it has a spiritual problem.
I respect your view that suicide is an arrogant act and that suffering is an unavoidable
part of life. I totally agree with the latter philosophy. You suffer, and you wade through it
and come out on the other side as a better person. Forged in fire, so to speak.
Plus, I am, by nature, an optimist. There is always something to look forward to, every
morning.
But, a few years ago, I suffered a cascade of bodily failures, whose symptoms were at
first ignored, then misdiagnosed, resulting in my taking medications that made me worse off.
At one point, for two months, I had constant nerve pain (comparable to having teeny barbed
wire wrapped around my torso and and being zapped by an electric charge every few seconds.)
Plus back pain. I could not eat, and when I did, I vomited. I lost 20 pounds. I could not
sleep for more than hour at a time, and that hour happened only once a day. I walked only
with the aid of two walking sticks. I was totally constipated for a month (gross, but this
condition just adds to one's misery.) There was no end in sight and my condition just kept
worsening with each round of new medication.
I did not seriously contemplate suicide. But I did give some thought to what I would do if
I had to face life without sleep, without food, without the ability to walk, and death came
up as one of the better solutions. Fortunately, I changed doctors.
I empathize with your struggles, and I have contemplated suicide myself, but contemplating
death is part of the shaman's journey. I do not think that suicide is arrogant, I think it is
a misunderstanding.
IMHO, medical doctors will disrupt this journey. They should be consulted but with the
understanding that they know very little about the balance of the body and what is needed to
heal.
Truth is, we will die. The greater the suffering the easier to find out "who" that is
suffering.
I get in fights with my therapist all the time about this. She is always advocating for ME
to change when I feel if she wants to help us all she should be helping us change the
system.
Well roles like therapist are part of what props up the system and they get paid for
precisely that.
I mean if we are just living our lives we see that things are both individual and
systematic. And some things are strongly systematic (economic problems), and others probably
have a significantly personal component (phobias etc.). And so we have to exist with both
being true, but if we are drowning in economic problems the rest doesn't matter. But
therapists have a specific role to individualize all problems. But if people are just doing
therapy to get stuff off their chest, who can blame them. Enough people are, although it's
not how therapists like to see their role.
The train goes right by Chester, Pa, and you can see decay along the tracks all along
BosWash. Except for Biden, a corrupt tool who hasn't figured out how to cash in, the elites
don't take the train.
Remember the Kingsman movie where the president was going to let all the dopers die? Think
Trump.
Not only is the WH response to the opioid problem merely cosmetic, they (and NIH) refuse
to link it to the economics of human obsolescence. How convenient. As jobs die, the workers
do too – less welfare burden. That is fascist thinking, and it is evident today.
Finally, let us recall that all public health leaders are Trump appointees – i.e.,
incompetent. CDC too refuses to link suicide to the economy. It's bad politics. They can do
this because there are no national standards for reporting deaths as suicides or even drug
overdoses. It is entirely up to the elected coroner. Thus 10s of thousands of suicides are
reported as natural or accidental either intentionally to ease the grief of family members or
because they lack the manpower to investigate suspicious deaths. Note the bump in accidental
deaths. Driving your car into a concrete abutment or over a cliff might be an accident, but
more often than not, the driver was pickled (Irish courage) and the death was
intentional.
So, until we do a better job of measuring the causes of death, the administration can
continue to blame the deaths on moral weakness rather than its cruel economic policies.
Sadly, I believe if suicide attempts were taken into account, the picture would even look
far bleaker, and likely include far more Metro areas. In those Metro areas there are likely
far less gun/rifle owners (reportedly the most successful method), far quicker ambulance
response times, and significant expenditures have been made, and actions taken, to thwart
attempts on transit lines and bridges, along with committing suicidal persons to locked down
psychiatric facilities (which then adds further financial burden, significant employment
issues, and possibly ugly, forced medication side effects); while doing absolutely nothing
whatsoever to address the causes.
What a sickening blotch on the US , with such wealth and power – sovereign in
its own currency – that it's citizens are increasingly attempting and committing
suicide because they can no longer afford to live in any manner that's considered humane.
That, while its Fourth Estate deliberately obscures the deadly problem – which
cannot be cured by forcing Pharma™, Therapy™, and Psychiatric Confinement™
at it, when a predatory crippling of economic stability is the entire cause – and
refuses to hold the Government and Elites accountable.
I would commend to all Beth Macy's riveting book "
Dopesick : Dealers, Doctors, and the Drug Company that Addicted America ."
Equal parts nicely written investigative reporting and painful personal stories. I'd
thought that the "opioid epidemic" meme was hyperbolic. I was wrong.
In reality this is mostly neocolonial way of dealing with countries. Allowing local oligarchy
to steal as much loaned by foreign states money as they can and converting the country into the
debt slave. Look at Greece and Ukraine for two prominent examples.
The position of OneCommentator is a typical position of defenders and propagandists
of neoliberalism
IMF is part of "Washington Consensus" with the direct goal of converting countries into debt slaves of industrialized
West. It did not work well with Acia counties, but it is great success in some countries in Europe and most of Africa and Latin
America (with Argentina as the most recent example)
Notable quotes:
"... As central banks such as the FED and the ECB operate with insatiable greed and cannot be audited or regulated by any government body anywhere in the world, due to their charters having been set up that way, then bankers are free to meet secretly and plot depressions so as to gain full control over sovereign nations and manipulate markets so that their "chums and agents" in business can buy up assets and land in depressed economies – while possible wars could also make corporations and banks more money as well! ..."
..."neoliberal", concept behind the word, has nothing to do with liberal or liberty or
freedom..
Wrong. Traditional liberalism supported both social and economic freedoms. That
included support for most of the civil rights and freedoms we enjoy today AND free trade and
free investments. It used to be that liberals were practically unpopular with right wing
(traditional conservative for example) parties but more or less on the same side as left wing
parties, mainly because of their social positions. More recently the left wing parties became
more and more unhappy with the economic freedoms promoted by liberals while the right wing
parties embraced both the economic and social freedoms to a certain degree.
So, the leftists
found themselves in a bind practically having reversed roles which the the conservatives as
far as support for liberalism goes. So, typically, they're using propaganda to cover their
current reactionary tendencies and coins a new name for liberals: neoliberals which, they
say, are not the same as liberals (who are their friends since liberal means freedom lover
and they like to use that word a lot).
"austerity" is the financial sectors' solution to its survival after it sucked most the
value out of the economy and broke it.
Austerity is caused by incompetent governments unable to balance their budgets.
They had 60 years to do it properly after ww2 and the reconstruction that followed but many
of them never did it. So now it is very simple: governments ran out of money and nobody wants
to lend them more. That's it, they hit the wall and there is nothing left on the bottom if
the purse.
The IMF exists to lend money to governments, so it's comic that it wags its finger at
governments that run up debt.
It is a bit more complicated than that. Developed countries like Greece are supposed to run
more or less balanced budgets over longer periods. Sure, they need to borrow money on a
regular basis and may that is supposed to be done by issuing bonds or other forms of
government debt that investors buy on the open market. For such governments the IMF is
supposed to just fill in in a minor way not to provide the bulk of all the loans needed on a
temporary basis. Because of incompetent governments Greece is practically bankrupt hence it
is not going to be able to pay back most of the existing debts and definitely not newer
debts. So practically the IMF is not, ending money to them, it is giving them the money. So,
I would say that they have a good reason to wag its finger.
If private, stockholder-held central banks such as the FED and the FED-backed ECB were not
orchestrating this depression, and anybody who believed they were was a "wacko-nutcase
conspiracy theorist", then why do they keep repeating the same mistakes of forcing un-payable
bailout loans, collapsing banks, wiping out people's savings and then imposing austerity on
those nations year after year – when it is clearly a failed policy?
Possible Answers :
1. Bank presidents are all ex-hippies who got hooked on LSD in the 70's and have not yet
recovered fully as their brains are still fried!
2. Central bankers have been recruited from insane asylums in both Europe and America in
government-sponsored programs to see whether blithering idiots are capable of running large,
international financial institutions.
3. All catastrophic events in the banking/business world, such as the derivative and
housing crash of 2008, the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and The Great Depression of 1929-40
were totally random events that just occurred out of nowhere and central banks were caught
off guard – leaving them no option but to play with their willies for years on end
until a major war suddenly happened to pull the whole world out of "bad times"!
4. As central banks such as the FED and the ECB operate with insatiable greed and cannot
be audited or regulated by any government body anywhere in the world, due to their charters
having been set up that way, then bankers are free to meet secretly and plot depressions so
as to gain full control over sovereign nations and manipulate markets so that their "chums
and agents" in business can buy up assets and land in depressed economies – while
possible wars could also make corporations and banks more money as well!
Please choose one of the possible answers from above and write a short 500 word essay on
whether it may or may not true – using well-defined logical arguments. I expect your
answers in by Friday of this week as I would like to get pissed out of my mind at the pub on
Saturday night!
The neoliberal idea is that the cultivation itself should be conducted privately as
well. They see "austerity" as a way of forcing that agenda.
..."neoliberal", concept behind the word, has nothing to do with liberal or liberty or
freedom...it is a PR spin concept that names slavery with a a word that sounds like the
opposite...if "they" called it neoslavery it just wouldn't sell in the market for political
concepts.
..."austerity" is the financial sectors' solution to its survival after it sucked most the
value out of the economy and broke it. To mend it was a case of preservation of the elite and
the devil take the hindmost, that's most of us.
...and even Labour, the party of trade unionism, has adopted austerity to drive its
policy.
...we need a Peoples' Party to stand for the revaluation of labour so we get paid for our
effort rather than the distortion, the rich xxx poor divide, of neoslavery austerity.
Nobody would dispute the fact that sanctification of truth is an essential foundation for
a free society. The full extent of perversion and depravity of psychopaths in power is held
in check to some extent by their need to pay lip service to civility and rule of law in the
public eye -- until **** hits the fan. The full extent of pathocracy is about to become
obvious in the Reset. It's going to stun the general public.
I don't know if there is a general formula for describing this, but in my experience,
organizations with psychopaths at the top tend to disintegrate on their own, but they do one
hell of a lot of damage on the way down, since the psychopaths never cede their power and
make moral decisions willingly. Things are essentially guaranteed to get worse as long as
they retain power. It's hard to imagine any remedy to this situation that doesn't involve
some kind of violence, starting of course with manipulation of different groups on the
street. The trouble with any scenario fitting the description of Civil War is that it tends
to center around proxy groups, while those ultimately responsible get away.
We have anecdotes about 'white hat' groups like the so-called White Dragons. They, like the
CIA, appear to operate in the shadows. Do they really exist, and are they really working to
make a positive difference? Will we know them by their works?
I have no faith in Trump as some kind of solo superhero, because thus far all the talk
about him appears to have been nothing but wishful thinking. The man seems like a human
pinball, utterly inconsistent and unpredictable. That's helpful in some ways, not in others.
Something else needs to happen / someone else needs to rise in the role of a statesman and
genuine, meaningful reformer.
"... The original "New Deal," which included massive public works infrastructure projects, was introduced by Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s amid the Great Depression. Its purpose was to stave off a socialist revolution in America. It was a response to a militant upsurge of strikes and violent class battles, led by socialists who were inspired by the 1917 Russian Revolution ..."
"... Since the 2008 crash, first under Bush and Obama, and now Trump, the ruling elites have pursued a single-minded policy of enriching the wealthy, through free credit, corporate bailouts and tax cuts, while slashing spending on social services. ..."
"... To claim as does Ocasio-Cortez that American capitalism can provide a new "New Deal," of a green or any other variety, is to pfile:///F:/Private_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/Historyromote an obvious political fiction." ..."
"The original "New Deal," which included massive public works infrastructure projects,
was introduced by Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s amid the Great
Depression. Its purpose was to stave off a socialist revolution in America. It was a response
to a militant upsurge of strikes and violent class battles, led by socialists who were
inspired by the 1917 Russian Revolution that had occurred less than two decades before.
American capitalism could afford to make such concessions because of its economic
dominance. The past forty years have been characterized by the continued decline of American
capitalism on a world stage relative to its major rivals. The ruling class has responded to
this crisis with a social counterrevolution to claw back all gains won by workers. This has
been carried out under both Democratic and Republican administrations and with the assistance
of the trade unions.
Since the 2008 crash, first under Bush and Obama, and now Trump, the ruling elites have
pursued a single-minded policy of enriching the wealthy, through free credit, corporate
bailouts and tax cuts, while slashing spending on social services.
To claim as does Ocasio-Cortez that American capitalism can provide a new "New Deal," of a
green or any other variety, is to pfile:///F:/Private_html/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/Historyromote an obvious political fiction."
Quite. Language is the first victim of any hegemonic project. Examples abound in communism,
fascism and neoliberalism. There's nothing to argue with in this article yet, unsurprisingly,
the usual swivel-eyed brigade seem to have popped up. Perhaps your discussion of work strays
a little too close to philosophy for the unthinking. I don't know why I'm disheartened by
some of the responses, as the same voices appear btl in almost ever CIF article, but I am
somehow. Perhaps because the point of the article - the hijacking of language - is so
obviously true as to be uncontroversial to any but the ideologically purblind, yet still....
@thesingingdetective - what is an insurance policy other than a financial product where in
return for payments over a period of time a claim can be made in certain circumstances?
If anything, particularly given that the link between contributions and claims is now
nugatory, describing welfare as welfare is much more honest and much less "neoliberal". It is
a set of payments and entitlements society has agreed upon to ensure a level of welfare for
all rather than an insurance policy which each individual may claim against if they've kept
up their payments.
If an anti-neo-liberal, supportive of the article can get this so back to front, perhaps
the "debate" being posited is an empty one about language.
If you changed a few words from the Communist Manifesto, it could easily be about
neo-liberalism and leftist attitudes towards it.
"A spectre is haunting Europe; the spectre of neo-liberalism. All the leftists of old
Europe have entered into a Holy Alliance to exorcise this spectre; Toynbee and Loach;
Redgrave and Harris.
Where is the party in power that has not been decried as neo-liberalistic by its leftist
opponents on the sidelines?"
Take FE as a case study on how the coin counters have taken over the world.
Back in the dark ages of the 1980s, the maths department had 7 lecturers (2 part time) and
two people to look after the admin - there was also the Department Head (who was a lecturer)
and a Head of School. They had targets, loosely defined, but it was a rare year when there
wasn't a smattering of A grades at A level...
Then along came the coin counters, the target setters, with their management degrees and
swivel eyed certainty that 'greed is good... competition! competition! competition!' and with
them came the new professionals into the department... the 'Quality Manager'... the
'Curriculum Manager' the 'Exams Manager' the 'Deputy Exams Manager'... and the paperwork
increased to feed the beast that counts everything but knows nothing... and targets were
set.... 'Targets! Targets! Targets!... and we were all sent in search of excellence... 'teach
to the exam' 'We must meet our targets'... 'we won't use exam board 'A' because they're
tough' and the exam boards reacted to their own target culture by all simplifying. The
universities began to notice the standard of 'A' grade students (who increased) was
equivelant to a C grade of 5 years ago. However, targets were being met (on paper) quality
was maintained (on paper) we were improving year on year (on paper). However, what was going
on in the real world is that our students were being sold a pup - their level of competence
and of knowledge was very much inferior to their same grade fore bearers of just 5 years
previous
Eventually, the department became 1 full time lecturer and 4 on 'zero hour contracts' and
the Head of School became 'Chief Executive' the 'Head of Department' became 'Department
Manager' and a gap developed between those who taught and those who 'managed'... not just a
culture gap... a bloody big pay gap...
Who benefited from all this marketisation?
Not the lecturers... not the students... not the universities... not industry...not the
economy...
Who benefited? Work it out for yourselves (as I used to tell my students)
@roachclip - I am familiar with the numerous wiki sites including Wikipedia, thank you very
much. If you read the article yourself you would see it supports my point of view here.
There are loads of other examples of rarely scrutinised terms in our economic
vocabulary, for instance that bundle of terms clustered around investment and expenditure
– terms that carry with them implicit moral connotations. Investment implies an
action, even a sacrifice, undertaken for a better future. It evokes a future positive
outcome. Expenditure, on the other hand, seems merely an outgoing, a cost, a burden.
This is absolute nonsense...the terms "investment" and "expenditure" carry no moral
connotations that I can determine. Does the author accept that we need to have terms to
express each of these concepts? Perhaps she would like to come up with some alternative
suggestions for the notions of "contributing money" and "spending money"?
Seconded, its uses and abuses of the English Language second only that of the Church. A
fitting comparison in my book because they both have much in common. Both are well aware that
it is through language and the control of which that true cultural change is achieved.
Both know that this new language must be propagated as far and as wide as possible, with
saturation coverage. Control of information is a a must, people must see and they must know
only things of your choosing.
For example, back in the 4th Century AD (which is incidentally an abbreviation of the Latin
'Anno Domini', which means 'in the year of our Lord'), the church became centralised and
established under the patronage of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Part of this centralising
mission was the creation of a uniform belief system. Those that 'chose' to believe something
else were branded 'heretics'. The word 'heresy' coming from the Greek
'αἵρεσις' for 'choice'. Thus to choose to have your
own opinions was therefore deemed to be a bad thing.
As a quick aside, 'Pagan' comes from the Latin 'paganus' which means 'rural dweller'. I.e.
those beyond the remit of the urban Christian elites. 'Heathen' on the other hand is Old
English (hæðen). It simply means 'not Christian or Jewish.
When you have complete control over the flow of information, as the Church did by the 5th
Century, then you can write practically anything. This doesn't mean just writing good things
about yourself and bad things about your enemies. Rather it means that you can frame the
debate anyway you wish.
In modern times, I would argue that you can see similar things happen here. As the author
suggests, terms like 'Wealth Creator', 'Scrounger', 'Sponger', 'living on welfare', 'Growth',
'progress' and my personal favourite, 'reform', take on a whole new meaning.
Their definition of the word 'reform' and what we would see it to mean are two totally
different things, Yet since it is they that has access to the wider world and not us, then it
is their definition that gets heard. The same could be said for all the other words and their
latter day connotations.
Thus when you hear the news and you hear what passes for debate, you hear things on their
terms. Using their language with their meanings. A very sad state of affairs indeed.
Neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that
proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial
freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private
property rights, free markets, and free trade.
You'll notice I've highlighted the word freedoms. Freedom is a word they hijacked right
from the start of the process and how they hijacked the Republican party in the USA.
For any way of thought to become dominant, a conceptual apparatus has to be advanced that
appeals to our intuitions and instincts, to our values and our desires, as well as to the
possibilities inherent in the social world we inhabit. If successful, this conceptual
apparatus becomes so embedded in common sense as to be taken for granted and not open to
question. The founding figures of neoliberal thought took political ideals of human
dignity and individual freedom as fundamental.
Concepts of dignity and individual freedom are powerful and appealing in their own right.
Such ideals empowered the dissident movements in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union before
the end of the Cold War as well as the students in Tiananmen Square. The student movements
that swept the world in 1968––from Paris and Chicago to Bangkok and Mexico
City––were in part animated by the quest for greater freedoms of speech and of
personal choice.
More generally, these ideals appeal to anyone who values the ability to make decisions for
themselves.
The idea of freedom, long embedded in the US tradition, has played a conspicuous role in
the US in recent years. '9/11' was immediately interpreted by many as an attack on it. 'A
peaceful world of growing freedom', wrote President Bush on the first anniversary of
that awful day, 'serves American long-term interests, reflects enduring American ideals
and unites America's allies.' 'Humanity', he concluded, 'holds in its hands the opportunity
to
offer freedom's triumph over all its age-old foes', and 'the United States welcomes its
responsibilities to lead in this great mission'. This language was incorporated into the US
National Defense Strategy document issued shortly thereafter. 'Freedom is the Almighty's gift
to every man and woman in this world', he later said, adding that 'as the greatest power on
earth we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom'.
When all of the other reasons for engaging in a pre-emptive war against Iraq were proven
wanting, the president appealed to the idea that the freedom conferred on Iraq was in and of
itself an adequate justification for the war. The Iraqis were free, and that was all
that really mattered. But what sort of 'freedom' is envisaged here, since, as the cultural
critic Matthew Arnold long ago thoughtfully observed, 'freedom is a very good horse to ride,
but to
ride somewhere'.To what destination, then, are the Iraqi people expected to ride the horse of
freedom donated to them by force of arms?
As Hayek quoted....
Planning and control are being attacked as a denial of freedom. Free
enterprise and private ownership are declared to be essentials of freedom.
No society built on other foundations is said to deserve to be called free.
The freedom that regulation creates is denounced as unfreedom; the justice, liberty and
welfare it offers are decried as a camouflage of slavery.
The Neoliberal idea of freedom 'thus degenerates into a mere advocacy of free
enterprise. It helps explain why neoliberalism has turned so authoritarian, forceful, and
anti-democratic at the very moment when 'humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to
offer freedom's triumph over all its age-old foes'. It makes us focus on how so many
corporations have profiteered from withholding the benefits of their
technologies, famine, and environmental disaster. It raises the worry as to whether or not
many of these calamities or
near calamities (arms races and the need to confront both real and
imagined enemies) have been secretly engineered for corporate advantage.
Political slogans can be invoked that mask specific strategies beneath vague
rhetorical devices. The word 'freedom' resonates so widely within the common-sense
understanding of Americans that it becomes 'a button that elites can press to open the door
to the masses' to justify almost anything.
Appeals to traditions and cultural values bulked large in all of this. An open project
around the restoration of economic power to a small elite would probably not gain much
popular support. But a programmatic attempt to advance the cause of individual freedoms could
appeal to a mass base and so disguise the drive to restore class power.
Fascinating article, thanks for publishing. It goes some way to explaining, not only the
tenacity of neo-liberalism, but also its ability to consolidate its power, even at the moment
when it seemed weakest. Its ability to rearticulate language and to present as natural law
what is socially constructed, shows the depth of its hold on society, economics, politics,
culture and even science.
There is a neat cross-over here between neo-liberal discourses and the use of language by
the military. Not only does this extend to the general diffusion of certain key phrases, but
I think it also runs deeper. Just as the elision of meaning in the language of war
facilitates the perpetuation of abuses and war crimes, so the neo-lib discourse permits the
perpetuation of questionable economic activity, even as this presents itself in the
unquestionable guise of "common sense".
The world according to Trump -- notice a trend here?
Reporter: "Who should be held accountable?" [for Jamal Khashoggi's murder]
Trump: "Maybe the world should be held accountable because the world is a vicious place. The world is a very, very vicious
place. " -- November 22, 2018.
2007:
" The world is a vicious and brutal place. We think we're civilized. In truth, it's a cruel world and people are ruthless.
They act nice to your face, but underneath they're out to kill you." Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and in Life , Donald
Trump & Bill Zanker, 2007, p. 71.
"Life is not easy. The world is a vicious, brutal place. It's a place where people are looking to kill you, if not
physically, then mentally. In the world that we live in every day it is usually the mental kill. People are looking to put you
down, especially if you are on top. When I watched Westerns as a kid, I noticed the cowboys were always trying to kill the fastest
gun. As a kid, I never understood it. Why would anyone want to go after the fastest gun?
"This is the way it is in real life. Everyone wants to kill the fastest gun. In real estate, I am the fastest gun, and everyone
wants to kill me. You have to know how to defend yourself. People will be nasty and try to kill you just for sport. Even your
friends are out to get you!" Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and in Life , Donald Trump & Bill Zanker, 2007, p. 139.
2018:
"Well, not all people. But it's a vicious place. The world is a vicious place. You know, the lions and tigers, they
hunt for food, we hunt for sport. So, it can be a very vicious place. You turn on the television and you look at what's happening."
Interview with John Barton, Golf Digest , October 13, 2014.
" This is the most deceptive, vicious world. It is vicious, it's full of lies, deceit and deception. You make a deal
with somebody and it's like making a deal with– that table." Interview with Lesley Stahl, CBS 60 Minutes , October 15,
2018.
"This is a r– this is a vicious place. Washington DC is a vicious, vicious place. The attacks, the– the bad mouthing,
the speaking behind your back. –but – you know, and in my way, I feel very comfortable here." Interview with Lesley Stahl, CBS
60 Minutes , October 15, 2018.
Karl Kolchak , November 23, 2018 8:54 pm
The world is a vicious place -- that is utterly dependent on oil and other fossil fuels, and will be until civilization
finally collapses.
ilsm , November 24, 2018 7:19 am
Newly posted DNC democrat Bill Kristol thinks regime change in China a worthwhile endeavor.
The "world is a vicious place" designed, set up, held together, secured by the capitalist "post WW II world order" paid for
by the US taxpayer and bonds bought by arms dealers and their financiers.
The tail wagging the attack dog being a Jerusalem-Medina axis straddling Hormuz and Malacca .
An inept princely heir apparent assassin is far better than Rouhani in a "vicious place".
Somehow I doubt that this Christmas will win the Bing Crosby star of approval. Rather, we
see the financial markets breaking under the strain of sustained institutionalized fraud, and
the social fabric tearing from persistent systemic political dishonesty. It adds up to a
nation that can't navigate through reality, a nation too dependent on sure things, safe
spaces, and happy outcomes. Every few decades a message comes from the Universe that faking
it is not good enough.
The main message from the financials is that the global debt barge has run aground, and
with it, the global economy. That mighty engine has been chugging along on promises-to-pay
and now the faith that sustained those promises is dissolving. China, Euroland, and the USA
can't possibly meet their tangled obligations, and are running out of tricks for rigging,
gaming, and jacking the bond markets, where all those promises are vested. It boils down to a
whole lot of people not getting paid, one way or the other -- and it's really bad for
business.
Our President has taken full credit for the bubblicious markets, of course, and will be
Hooverized as they gurgle around the drain. Given his chimerical personality, he may try to
put on an FDR mask -- perhaps even sit in a wheelchair -- and try a few grand-scale policy
tricks to escape the vortex. But the net effect will surely be to make matters worse -- for
instance, if he can hector the Federal Reserve to buy every bond that isn't nailed to some
deadly derivative booby-trap. But then he'll only succeed in crashing the dollar. Remember,
there are two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or you can have plenty of
worthless money.
" Remember, there are two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or you can
have plenty of worthless money". Both pretty much sums up America's predicament. Americans
are deep in debt, and their money is worthless.
he may try to put on an FDR mask -- perhaps even sit in a wheelchair -- and try a few
grand-scale policy tricks to escape the vortex. But the net effect will surely be to make
matters worse -- for instance, if he can hector the Federal Reserve to buy every bond that
isn't nailed to some deadly derivative booby-trap. But then he'll only succeed in crashing
the dollar. Remember, there are two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or
you can have plenty of worthless money.
Here's a prediction. If the next GFC is bad enough, will the Government and the Fed bypass
the Banks and send Cash direct to Consumers? Maybe everybody with a SIN Number who is over 18
gets a Housing Voucher to be used towards the purchase of Real Estate??
- Will it be the last one or can they kick the can just..a..little..further down the
road
- Where will it leak to besides Bankruptcies? Politics? War? All of the Above?
didyoujustpullthatoutofyourass , 16 minutes ago
link
I think the powers that be are going to lose control of everything. We're going to be
looking at a Bolshevik Revolution on a global scale. The bad parts of the bible. Because of
years of indoctrination and immigration we can no longer fix our situation with ballots.
Because of years of overspending we can no longer get out of debt. Because of years of
outsourcing we can no longer produce our own basic necessities. All of Western civilization
is in a predicament that is impossible to get out of. We're screwed. This was done to us on
purpose, and the people who did it, still haven't stopped, because they want us
destroyed.
"... farmers are, in any society in which interest on loans is calculated, inevitably subject to being impoverished, then stripped of their property, and finally reduced to servitude (including the sexual servitude of daughters and wives) by their creditors, creditors. The latter inevitably seek to effect the terminal polarization of society into an oligarchy of predatory creditors cannibalizing a sinking underclass mired in irreversible debt peonage ..."
"... For what is the most basic condition of civilization, Hudson asks, other than societal organization that effects lasting "balance" by keeping "everybody above the break-even level"? ..."
"... they possessed the financial sophistication to understand that, since interest on loans increases exponentially, while economic growth at best follows an S-curve. This means that debtors will, if not protected by a central authority, end up becoming permanent bondservants to their creditors. So Mesopotamian kings regularly rescued debtors who were getting crushed by their debts. ..."
"... By clearing away the buildup of personal debts, rulers saved society from the social chaos that would have resulted from personal insolvency, debt bondage, and military defection ..."
"... In ancient Mesopotamian societies it was understood that freedom was preserved by protecting debtors. ..."
"... For us freedom has been understood to sanction the ability of creditors to demand payment from debtors without restraint or oversight. This is the freedom to cannibalize society. This is the freedom to enslave. This is, in the end, the freedom proclaimed by the Chicago School and the mainstream of American economists. ..."
"... A constant dynamic of history has been the drive by financial elites to centralize control in their own hands and manage the economy in predatory, extractive ways. Their ostensible freedom is at the expense of the governing authority and the economy at large. As such, it is the opposite of liberty as conceived in Sumerian times ..."
"... And our Orwellian, our neoliberal notion of unrestricted freedom for the creditor dooms us at the very outset of any quest we undertake for a just economic order. Any and every revolution that we wage, no matter how righteous in its conception, is destined to fail. ..."
"... But, in the eighth century B.C., along with the alphabet coming from the Near East to the Greeks, so came the concept of calculating interest on loans. This concept of exponentially-increasing interest was adopted by the Greeks -- and subsequently by the Romans -- without the balancing concept of Clean Slate amnesty. ..."
"... Hudson is able to explain that the long decline and fall of Rome begins not, as Gibbon had it, with the death of Marcus Aurelius, the last of the five good emperors, in A.D. 180, but four centuries earlier, following Hannibal's devastation of the Italian countryside during the Second Punic War (218-201 B.C.). ..."
"... latifundia Italiam ..."
"... Arnold Toynbee is almost alone in emphasizing the role of debt in concentrating Roman wealth and property ownership" (p. xviii) -- and thus in explaining the decline of the Roman Empire. ..."
"... This is a typical example of Orwellian doublespeak engineered by public relations factotums for bondholders and banks. The real hazard to every economy is the tendency for debts to grow beyond the ability of debtors to pay. The first defaulters are victims of junk mortgages and student debtors, but by far the largest victims are countries borrowing from the IMF in currency "stabilization" (that is economic destabilization) programs. ..."
"... The analogy in Bronze Age Babylonia was a flight of debtors from the land. Today from Greece to Ukraine, it is a flight of skilled labor and young labor to find work abroad. ..."
"... "Sin" and "Debt" are the same word in many languages, such as German, Scandinavian etc. ..."
"... The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity ..."
"... Yes, Hudson's scholarship puts the lie to a lot of common economic beliefs today. ..."
"... Bankruptcy is essentially a form of debt jubilee that isn't society-wide on a specific date. ..."
"... Keeping inflation target extremely low should serve the creditors more than the debtors. ..."
"... The ECB, as currently constituted, is a full on neoliberal disaster. Copious evidence provided here: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/ ..."
"... Western civilization, until very recently, had very strict anti-usury laws which prevented most people from borrowing money at all, let alone falling into debt servitude. Indeed, while laws varied widely from place to place, most victims of over-borrowing were royal courts and aristocrats, not smallholders. And of course, since most moneylenders were Jewish, one solution for debtors regularly employed was to simply run the creditors out of town or indeed, the country. Isn't that a kind of jubilee? ..."
"... The parallels of debt oligarchies to tech oligarchies, this article draws for me .. "So it was inevitable that, in the last century of American history, increasing numbers of small firms became irredeemably unviable and lost their ability to compete. It likewise was inevitable that the FANGS amassed the masses of entrepreneurial talent and established themselves in parasitic oligarchies." ..."
"... For what is the most basic condition of civilization, Hudson asks, other than societal organization that effects lasting "balance" by keeping "everybody above the break-even level"? ..."
"... That's the core regulating idea Geoff Mann draws out of Keynes in his recent "In the Long Run We Are All Dead." As best as I can tell his take on Keynes is accurate, and he's able to make a case for aligning him with the likes of Hegel and -- drum roll -- Robespierre, who was fiercely insistent on the guarantee of an "honorable poverty." In a way, they were all theorists of the abyss, pragmatists who insisted on measures to make sure economies didn't kill their members. I was particularly taken by the idea that the General Theory is not systematic but rather an analysis of different modes of breakdown, e.g. the liquidity trap, that must be compensated for. ..."
"... Yes. Bankruptcy is hardly any kind of Jubilee. Any debt is much harder to discharge post 2005, including medical, which is the cause of half of bankruptcies according to filers. ..."
"... Student loans. Now there's a naked fleecing scam by the moneychangers. High interest, zero risk, no forgiveness. A great racket if you can get it, like Medical Insurance, profiteering guaranteed by Obamacare. ..."
"... Cooperation. Because we can decline the idea of debt right back to one thing. Cooperation. When Graeber says "Money is Debt" he is right but he fails to define the root of debt. Because debt is not money. ..."
"... Ordinary people in pension plans do own debt. That is where the hit would be hardest to absorb. ..."
"... At some point, supporters of debt forgiveness need to reconcile their position with the fact that the extinguishing of debt is, in effect, a sovereign action taking the property of another on a scale without much parallel in modern society. ..."
"... Let me suggest a parallel or two: the acquisition of property by means of enforced indebtedness combined with creditor fraud that occurred in the Great Foreclosure Carnage around 2008? Or the appropriation of the lion's share of economic growth since 1970 to the richest 1% or so? ..."
"... Creditors SHOULD be required to exercise judgment and restraint in extending credit. It's moral hazard in the other direction if the government lets them squeeze the life out of people. ..."
"... Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle ..."
"... "That is what creditors really wanted: Not merely the interest as such, but the collateral -- whatever economic assets debtors possessed, from their labor to their property, ending up with their lives" Creditors=Predators ..."
"... prædia/latifundia ..."
"... The purpose of doing so was as to keep society functioning by meeting demands that conflict with and at times are superior to the normal need to repay debt. Periodic debt forgiveness is equally normal, in the manner that medieval farmers let their land lie fallow so as to bear fruit another year. ..."
"... If the bank is stupid enough to make the loan, they are stupid enough to lose it. The bank must take the consequence of making a un-payable loan. ..."
"... The bank has far more resources to know if the loan is repayable than the person getting the loan. Since the bank 'knows' more, it should take on more responsibility for making the loan than the person getting the loan. And so, back to reason #1 above, stupid bank loses stupid loan. ..."
"... What could have facilitated debt jubilees in ancient societies was the fact that the new rulers which overthrew the old as a result of frequent wars, found it convenient to eliminate the former propertied classes to win over the support of the indebted and enslaved commoners. 'Wiping the slate clean' could have been just a measure to win political legitimacy. ..."
"... let me pre-purchase the book, and their system will download it and notify me when the content is available. ..."
To say that Michael Hudson's new book And Forgive Them Their Debts: Lending, Foreclosure,
and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Yea r (ISLET 2018) is profound is an
understatement on the order of saying that the Mariana Trench is deep. To grasp his central
argument is so alien to our modern way of thinking about civilization and barbarism that Hudson
quite matter-of-factly agreed with me that the book is, to the extent that it will be
understood, "earth-shattering" in both intent and effect. Over the past three decades, Hudson
gleaned (under the auspices of Harvard's Peabody Museum) and then synthesized the scholarship
of American and British and French and German and Soviet assyriologists (spelled with a
lower-case a to denote collectively all who study the various civilizations of ancien t
Mesopotamia, which include Sumer, the Akkadian Empire, Ebla, Babylonia, et al., as well as
Assyria with a capital A ). Hudson demonstrates that we, twenty-first century
globalists, have been morally blinded by a dark legacy of some twenty-eight centuries of
decontextualized history. This has left us, for all practical purposes, utterly ignorant
of the corrective civilizational model that is needed to save ourselves from tottering into
bleak neo-feudal barbarism.
This corrective model actually existed and flourished in the economic functioning of
Mesopotamian societies during the third and second millennia B.C. It can be termed Clean Slate
amnesty, a term Hudson uses to embrace the essential function of what was called amargi
and níg-si-sá in Sumerian, andurārum and mīš
arum in Akkadian (the language of Babylonia), šudūtu and kirenzi
in Hurrian, para tarnumar in Hittite, and deror (
דְּרוֹר ) in Hebrew: It is the necessary and periodic
erasure of the debts of small farmers -- necessary because such farmers are, in any society in
which interest on loans is calculated, inevitably subject to being impoverished, then stripped
of their property, and finally reduced to servitude (including the sexual servitude of
daughters and wives) by their creditors, creditors. The latter inevitably seek to effect the
terminal polarization of society into an oligarchy of predatory creditors cannibalizing a
sinking underclass mired in irreversible debt peonage. Hudson writes: "That is what creditors
really wanted: Not merely the interest as such, but the collateral -- whatever economic assets
debtors possessed, from their labor to their property, ending up with their lives" (p. 50).
And such polarization is, by Hudson's definition, barbarism. For what is the most basic
condition of civilization, Hudson asks, other than societal organization that effects lasting
"balance" by keeping "everybody above the break-even level"?
"Mesopotamian societies were not interested in equality," he told me, "but they were
civilized. And they possessed the financial sophistication to understand that, since interest
on loans increases exponentially, while economic growth at best follows an S-curve. This means
that debtors will, if not protected by a central authority, end up becoming permanent
bondservants to their creditors. So Mesopotamian kings regularly rescued debtors who were
getting crushed by their debts. They knew that they needed to do this. Again and again, century
after century, they proclaimed Clean Slate Amnesties."
Hudson also writes: "By liberating distressed individuals who had fallen into debt bondage,
and returning to cultivators the lands they had forfeited for debt or sold under economic
duress, these royal acts maintained a free peasantry willing to fight for its land and work on
public building projects and canals . By clearing away the buildup of personal debts, rulers
saved society from the social chaos that would have resulted from personal insolvency, debt
bondage, and military defection" (p. 3).
Marx and Engels never made such an argument (nor did Adam Smith for that matter). Hudson
points out that they knew nothing of these ancient Mesopotamian societies. No one did back
then. Almost all of the various kinds of assyriologists completed their archaeological
excavations and philological analyses during the twentieth century. In other words, this book
could not have been written until someone digested the relevant parts of the vast body of this
recent scholarship. And this someone is Michael Hudson.
So let us reconsider Hudson's fundamental insight in more vivid terms. In ancient
Mesopotamian societies it was understood that freedom was preserved by protecting debtors. In
what we call Western Civilization, that is, in the plethora of societies that have followed the
flowering of the Greek poleis beginning in the eighth century B.C., just the opposite,
with only one major exception (Hudson describes the tenth-century A.D. Byzantine Empire of
Romanos Lecapenus), has been the case: For us freedom has been understood to sanction the
ability of creditors to demand payment from debtors without restraint or oversight. This is the
freedom to cannibalize society. This is the freedom to enslave. This is, in the end, the
freedom proclaimed by the Chicago School and the mainstream of American economists.
And so
Hudson emphasizes that our Western notion of freedom has been, for some twenty-eight centuries
now, Orwellian in the most literal sense of the word: War is Peace • Freedom is
Slavery• Ignorance is Strength . He writes: "A constant dynamic of history has been
the drive by financial elites to centralize control in their own hands and manage the economy
in predatory, extractive ways. Their ostensible freedom is at the expense of the governing
authority and the economy at large. As such, it is the opposite of liberty as conceived in
Sumerian times" (p. 266).
And our Orwellian, our neoliberal notion of unrestricted freedom for the creditor
dooms us at the very outset of any quest we undertake for a just economic order. Any and every
revolution that we wage, no matter how righteous in its conception, is destined to fail.
And we are so doomed, Hudson says, because we have been morally blinded by twenty-eight
centuries of deracinated, or as he says, decontextualized history. The true roots of
Western Civilization lie not in the Greek poleis that lacked royal oversight to cancel
debts, but in the Bronze Age Mesopotamian societies that understood how life, liberty and land
would be cyclically restored to debtors again and again. But, in the eighth century B.C., along
with the alphabet coming from the Near East to the Greeks, so came the concept of calculating
interest on loans. This concept of exponentially-increasing interest was adopted by the Greeks
-- and subsequently by the Romans -- without the balancing concept of Clean Slate amnesty.
So it was inevitable that, over the centuries of Greek and Roman history, increasing numbers
of small farmers became irredeemably indebted and lost their land. It likewise was inevitable
that their creditors amassed huge land holdings and established themselves in parasitic
oligarchies. This innate tendency to social polarization arising from debt unforgiveness is the
original and incurable curse on our post-eighth-century-B.C. Western Civilization, the lurid
birthmark that cannot be washed away or excised. In this context Hudson quotes the classicist
Moses Finley to great effect: " . debt was a deliberate device on the part of the creditor to
obtain more dependent labor rather than a device for enrichment through interest." Likewise he
quotes Tim Cornell: "The purpose of the 'loan,' which was secured on the person of the debtor,
was precisely to create a state of bondage"(p. 52 -- Hudson earlier made this point in two
colloquium volumes he edited as part of his Harvard project: Debt and Economic Renewal in
the Ancient Near East , and Labor in the Ancient World ).
Hudson is able to explain that the long decline and fall of Rome begins not, as Gibbon had
it, with the death of Marcus Aurelius, the last of the five good emperors, in A.D. 180, but
four centuries earlier, following Hannibal's devastation of the Italian countryside during the
Second Punic War (218-201 B.C.). After that war the small farmers of Italy never recovered
their land, which was systematically swallowed up by the pr æ dia (note the
etymological connection with predatory ), the latifundia , the great oligarchic
estates: latifundia Italiam ("the great estates destroyed Italy"), as Pliny the Elder
observed. But among modern scholars, as Hudson points out, "Arnold Toynbee is almost alone in
emphasizing the role of debt in concentrating Roman wealth and property ownership" (p. xviii)
-- and thus in explaining the decline of the Roman Empire.
"Arnold Toynbee," Hudson writes, " described Rome 's patrician idea of 'freedom' or '
liberty ' as limited to oligarchic freedom from kings or civic bodies powerful enough to check
creditor power to indebt and impoverish the citizenry at large. 'The patrician aristocracy's
monopoly of office after the eclipse of the monarchy [Hudson quotes from Toynbee' s book
Hannibal's Legacy ] had been used by the patricians as a weapon for maintaining their
hold on the lion's share of the country's economic assets; and the plebeian majority of the
Roman citizen-body had striven to gain access to public office as a means to securing more
equitable distribution of property and a restraint on the oppression of debtors by creditors.'
The latter attempt failed," Hudson observes, "and European and Western civilization is still
living with the aftermath" (p. 262).
Because Hudson brings into focus the big picture, the pulsing sweep of Western history over
millennia, he is able to describe the economic chasm between ancient Mesopotamian civilization
and the later Western societies that begins with Greece and Rome: "Early in this century [
i.e . the scholarly consensus until the 1970s] Mesopotamia's debt cancellations were
understood to be like Solon's seisachtheia of 594 B.C. freeing the Athenian citizens
from debt bondage. But Near Eastern royal proclamations were grounded in a different
social-philosophical context from Greek reforms aiming to replace landed creditor aristocracies
with democracy. The demands of the Greek and Roman populace for debt cancellation can rightly
be called revolutionary [italics mine], but Sumerian and Babylonian demands were based
on a conservative tradition grounded in rituals of renewing the calendrical cosmos and its
periodicities in good order.
The Mesopotamian idea of reform had ' no notion [Hudson is quoting
Dominique Charpin ' s book Hammurabi of Babylon here] of what we would call social
progress. Instead, the measures the king instituted under his mīš arum were
measures to bring back the original order [italics mine]. The rules of the game had not
been changed, but everyone had been dealt a new hand of cards'" (p. 133). Contrast the Greeks
and Romans: " Classical Antiquity, " Hudson writes, "replaced the cyclical idea of time and
social renewal with that of linear time. Economic polarization became irreversible, not merely
temporary" (p. xxv). In other words: "The idea of linear progress, in the form of irreversible
debt and property transfers, has replaced the Bronze Age tradition of cyclical renewal" (p.
7).
After all these centuries, we remain ignorant of the fact that deep in the roots of our
civilization is contained the corrective model of cyclical return – what Dominique
Charpin calls the "restoration of order" (p. xix). We continue to inundate ourselves with a
billion variations of the sales pitch to borrow and borrow, the exhortation to put more and
more on credit, because, you know, the future's so bright I gotta wear shades.
Nowhere, Hudson shows, is it more evident that we are blinded by a deracinated, by a
decontextualized understanding of our history than in our ignorance of the career of
Jesus. Hence the title of the book: And Forgive Them Their Debts and the cover
illustration of Jesus flogging the moneylenders -- the creditors who do not forgive debts -- in
the Temple. For centuries English-speakers have recited the Lord's Prayer with the assumption
that they were merely asking for the forgiveness of their trespasses , their theological
sins : " and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us ."
is the translation presented in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. What is lost in
translation is the fact that Jesus came "to preach the gospel to the poor to preach the
acceptable Year of the Lord": He came, that is, to proclaim a Jubilee Year, a restoration of
deror for debtors: He came to institute a Clean Slate Amnesty (which is what
Hebrew דְּרוֹר connotes in this context).
So consider the passage from the Lord's Prayer literally: καὶ
ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ
ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν: " and
send away (ἄφες) for us our debts
(ὀφειλήματα)." The Latin translation is
not only grammatically identical to the Greek, but also shows the Greek word
ὀφειλήματα revealingly translated as
debita : et dimitte nobis debita nostra : " and discharge ( dimitte ) for
us our debts ( debita )." There was consequently, on the part of the creditor class, a
most pressing and practical reason to have Jesus put to death: He was demanding that they
restore the property they had rapaciously taken from their debtors. And after His death there
was likewise a most pressing and practical reason to have His Jubilee proclamation of a Clean
Slate Amnesty made toothless, that is to say, made merely theological: So the rich could
continue to oppress the poor, forever and ever. Amen.
Just as this is a profound book, it is so densely written that it is profoundly difficult to
read. I took six days, which included six or so hours of delightful and enlightening
conversation with the author himself, to get through it. I often availed myself of David
Graeber' s book Debt: The First 5,000 Years when I struggled to follow some of Hudson's
arguments. (Graeber and Hudson have been friends, Hudson told me, for ten years, and Graeber,
when writing Debt; The First 5,000 Years , relied on Hudson's scholarship for his
account of ancient Mesopotamian economics, cf. p. xxiii).
I have written this review as
synopsis of the book in order to provide some help to other readers: I cannot emphasize too
much that this book is indeed earth-shattering , but much intellectual labor is required
to digest it.
ADDENDUM: Moral Hazard
When I sent a draft of my review to a friend last night, he emailed me back with this
question:
-- Wouldn't debt cancellations just take away any incentive for people to pay back loans
and, thus, take away the incentive to give loans? People who haven't heard the argument
before and then read your review will probably be skeptical at first.
Here is Michael Hudson's response:
-- Creditors argue that if you forgive debts for a class of debtors – say, student
loans – that there will be some "free riders," and that people will expect to have bad
loans written off. This is called a "moral hazard," as if debt writedowns are a hazard to the
economy, and hence, immoral.
This is a typical example of Orwellian doublespeak engineered by public relations factotums
for bondholders and banks. The real hazard to every economy is the tendency for debts to grow
beyond the ability of debtors to pay. The first defaulters are victims of junk mortgages and
student debtors, but by far the largest victims are countries borrowing from the IMF in
currency "stabilization" (that is economic destabilization) programs.
It is moral for creditors to have to bear the risk ("hazard") of making bad loans, defined
as those that the debtor cannot pay without losing property, status or becoming insolvent. A
bad international loan to a government is one that the government cannot pay except by imposing
austerity on the economy to a degree that output falls, labor is obliged to emigrate to find
employment, capital investment declines, and governments are forced to pay creditors by
privatizing and selling off the public domain to monopolists.
The analogy in Bronze Age Babylonia was a flight of debtors from the land. Today from Greece
to Ukraine, it is a flight of skilled labor and young labor to find work abroad.
No debtor – whether a class of debtors such as students or victims of predatory junk
mortgages, or an entire government and national economy – should be obliged to go on the
road to and economic suicide and self-destruction in order to pay creditors. The definition of
statehood – and hence, international law – should be to put one's national solvency
and self-determination above foreign financial attacks. Ceding financial control should be
viewed as a form of warfare, which countries have a legal right to resist as "odious debt"
under moral international law.
The basic moral financial principal should be that creditors should bear the hazard for
making bad loans that the debtor couldn't pay -- like the IMF loans to Argentina and Greece.
The moral hazard is their putting creditor demands over the economy' s survival.
So is Hudson making the claim that Jesus was never talking about 'original sin' at all?
That he was talking about literal, temporal-world financial debts and the need to erase
them? If so, when and where did this theological confusion arise? Saul of Tarsus and his
mysticism?
King James version: "and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."
However, the temple whip episode demonstrated, by action, that he wanted separation of the
material economy from the religious, and 'render unto Caesar' that money was not his concern.
His inclusion of Matthew as a disciple had an antithesis with Simon the Zealot, sworn to kill
tax collectors, and says that material and financial values were to be set aside amongst his
followers.
If Hudson is claiming that the verse refers solely to this-world indebtedness, then he's
out over his skis. Not Jesus' problem.
Then of course there is the pharisee/sadducee conflict which ties into the Samaritan
story. The Samaritans were basically Jews with their own temple that didn't hand money over
to the Sadducees at the big shrine in Jerusalem everyone is always going on about. Of course,
Jesus does seem to share quite a bit in common with the Pharisees. Oh Lord, Jesus was
probably taking orders for tables and chairs during the Sermon on the Mount!
"Of course, Jesus does seem to share quite a bit in common with the Pharisees."
In his book The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity the late British Talmudic
scholar Hyam Maccoby
argues exactly that – that Jesus was a pharisee. He further asserts that Saul arrived
in Jerusalem seeking to study to become a Pharisee, a process that required extensive study,
but couldn't cut it. He then became an agent provocateur on behalf of the Sadducees in their
efforts to suppress phariseeism and the related sect founded by Jesus's disciples. After his
"road to Damascus moment," the now Paul cobbled together a new theology combining elements of
Judaism with elements of the pagan, nature religions of the Middle East. This "Jerusalem
Church," as Maccoby labels it, disappeared from history following the Roman sack of the city
in 70 CE. What has come down to us as the New Testament, argues the author in a footnote, is
a history of early Christianity that is analogous to a Stalinist history of the Russian
Revolution.
That's the theological equivalent to 'climate change is a natural phenomenon." That anti
semitic 'paul made it a jewish church' heresy been considered incorrect for over 1000 years.
read something else
add in the Constantinian Shift as well as the convenient lack of contemporary or original
texts and Christianity is hopelessly muddled. Theodosius muddled it even more.
In the same way as someone mentioned Judaism was split by the Babylonian Captivity(the elites
carted off, leaving the sub-elites in charge back home) upon their return, texts and ideas
were lost or burned, in the interest of temporal power.
same as it ever was.
in a former life, I endeavored to read all the source material of all this even read Eusebius
Constantine's pet bishop.
the various apocryphae throw everything we think we know about the history -- let alone the
original versions–into question. Nobody I've encountered in the world of religion wants
to go there but the idea of "Flog a Banker -- it's what Jesus would do" resonates with
ordinary Christians out here(except for the bankers, of course, and the rest of the
parasitium.
This book looks like a must-read. Any idea of a non-amazon source?
I was told, many years ago, that the Samaritans were the descendants of Jews who were not
shipped off to Babylon, while the sect that became dominant were the descendants of those who
went to Babylon. While there "in exile" they maintained their culture, but the two groups
inevitably diverged. When they returned from Babylon that group found the ones who had not
been exiled were not performing the rituals or interpreting "the Law" in exactly the same way
they did. Of course it was not possible that their own practices had changed.
Only the elite went into captivity, a common means of securing loyalty and assimilation.
My guess is the peasant religion probably wasn't terribly different from area to area when
you moved away from the coast and didn't get too close to Babylon or Egypt and likely just
assimilated new traditions various charismatic types passed through, not relying on anything
too specific as overlords also changed. Jerusalem was the last place the major powers could
fortify before they had to commit to a proper invasion of a major power. It was probably like
Christendom before the schism between East and West with powerful regional churches and
localized saints. Through the Americas, there are Christian celebrations with heavy local
influence from the Mexican Day of the Dead to the Irish throwing parades which aren't so
welcoming.
Islam strikes me more of a unifying religion of what was already there in a fashion
especially where Rome (Byzantines) wasn't really governing as well as a government
should.
The original sin was humans gaining the knowledge of duality and hence, the creation of
morality:
Genesis 2:15
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care
of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the
garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when
you eat from it you will certainly die. "
Genesis 3:4
"You will not certainly die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when
you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and
evil."
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye,
and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her
husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and
they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for
themselves. "
There are some who will say that Good and Evil in hebrew really mean that it was not
duality, but they would know "everything". However, if it did not mean good and evil why
would Adam and Eve be ashamed because they were naked? They did not know they were naked
because the dualism of naked/clothed did not exist.
Duality already existed but God did not want them to know about it because it would mean
they would suffer.
Jesus was a teacher of non-dualism. How can one die if there is no dualism, if there is no
opposite for "birth"?
I don't know. God looked over his creation and saw it was Good. I doubt that is a moral statement. I think it has more to do with creation and destruction.
They saw they were naked, so they destroyed gods creation, 'fig leaves', and created their
own, 'covering for themselves'.
Then god says the punishment for this was 'by the sweat of your brow, you will eat your
bread'
You were a hunter-gatherer, but now you have knowledge of creation and destruction, you
will become 'civilized' and become a farmer.
If we look at Cain and Abel we see one son was loved by god, while the other was not. It
was civilized man who offering god rejected, not the hunter-gatherer.
And after the murder, god told Cain "you are your brothers keeper'.
Its civilization that makes one man rich and another poor. Hunter gatherers are much more
egalitarian than civilized societies.
Jesus, and many others, are here to remind us that we are all children of god and in this
together.
And that 'civilized' man has a duty to those who are 'uncivilized'. The losers, they
people who can't make it, the bottom class, we owe them, because we 'took' their
livelihood.
"Original Sin" isn't part of Judaism or Islam despite the obvious inclusion of Adam and
Eve. IMHO, its probably not possible to separate Christianity from the Imperial structures of
Rome. A religion replacing a structure which makes its former leaders deities needs a good
story to be successful.
Adam and Eve aren't important stories in Judaism and Islam (they are evidence of
polytheistic roots), but they matter to Christians because of Saul's rants.
The other issue is the authors of the various doctrines depended on what they were
attracted to. "I am the Alpha and the Omega." If this line is the case, then in the
narrative, Jesus needs to reflect the beginning and the end. He's that important. Its like
when Q was in the series finale of Star Trek: The Next Generation in the same setting as the
premiere, but instead of dealing with a mystery, Picard has to deal with saving humanity and
his fish once again. Its a nice bow, but when Kirk shows up in Generations after dealing with
his issues both in Star Trek II and VI, it doesn't work. One Gospel traces Jesus through the
line of Kings, one through the prophets, and one just "the word." The Son of God isn't dying
for an extra day of lamp oil.
Mohammad is out there directing battles and building an empire that was probably better
than what was there before. Jesus was born into Pax Romana. He could have been born into much
worse places.
I do not feel anything you wrote is in disagreement with my thoughts.
Eden, I feel, is a an imprint of pre-history, of the paleolithic. A time when money was
not the common story that people willingly (or unwillingly) currently believe. I think this
is largely driven by genetics. If your genes can change by our diet why would they not be
able to be changed by our culture? So I do not care if someone wants to be capitalist, just give me my space to be an
anarchist. You capitalism does not work in my brain.
I think it is extremely unfortunate that Professor Hudson chose to make claims about 'mere
theology' that don't have a basis in the texts concerning Jesus. The inference I get from
reading all the evangelists wrote on the subject of the Lord's Prayer is that debt collecting
is indeed frowned upon, or rather to be forgiven, but what sense would it make for a follower
of Jesus to ask God to forgive economic debt? And the evangelists expand that concept to
mean, as has been earlier written by them, all the many shortcomings man is capable of, not
just penury.
Certainly the entire message of the Bible, old and new testaments, deals with the
honorable matter of helping the poor, widows and orphans as well, because that is a good
thing to do in the eyes of the Lord, who loves mankind created in His image as it is. All of
that is part of the compassionate spiritual being He is and we ought to be.
I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. For those of us who think the
spiritual message is important, there is no conflict between our faith and Dr. Hudson's
excellent reminder that mankind realized what was necessary to provide for a stable earthly
government very early in the historic record. But it has really always been recognized until
the recent economic period that governments must manage equity in their populations or else
come to a speedy ruin. Maybe never spelled out in economic theory, but even the pueblo
Indians would have something to say on the matter. Chaco Canyon is a case in point.
I think Dr. Hudson is commenting on what makes for a stable, just and durable
society . Like symmetry, humans are exquisitely attuned to imbalances in equity and fairness. Ask
two siblings made to share what they each most want. Governments and societies ignore that at
their peril.
I think he would say that much of economics is a form of special pleading, an argument by
the wealthy that what they do to become wealthy is of great value to all (not just the few)
– despite the overwhelming contrary evidence – and determined by the nearly
divine laws of the market.
Societies, like families, prosper, however, through enduring and repetitive
self-sacrifice.
Not to put words into Professor Hudson's mouth, I would say that he is correct on the
perceptions he has about the jubilee year as it is represented in the Old Testament and even
Jesus' reference to a jubilee year in the early part of his ministry. I give Professor Hudson
great credit for pointing out that powerful part of Jesus' early speech in the Temple that
did scandalize many of the listeners there. I had not seen that message before Dr. Hudson
pointed to it, but it is a very important one as he says. But Jesus was then and also in all
his further sayings taking that economic law promulgated in earlier texts and not only
pointing out that it wasn't being observed by unscrupulous taxation practices, but also
expanding it into a larger spiritual context wherein the poor are really blessed in spirit,
because poverty is right down there with humility, and that emptying of oneself on behalf of
another is where true compassion begins.
In my faith, Jesus is God incarnate. God incarnate in order that we see in his humility,
the humility intrinsic to God's relationship to mankind. Humility and 'humus' are related,
and so they should be. The hard shell of the seed falling to the ground preserves the soul of
the seed, even as what hardens it is the vicissitudes of its early life. We all presently
have life; we are like seeds that way. And as you say, EoH, societies, like families, prosper
through enduring and repetitive self-sacrifice. That's where faith and economics, true
economics such as Professor Hudson is proposing, meet.
The only church that, to me, holds to Jesus's teaching is the Franciscan Church. Jesus also tried to help people with their fears of "doing without". This is crucial to
me. If you are unafraid to do without the capitalists have no power.
25 Therefore I say unto you, Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye
shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than the
food, and the body than the raiment? 26 Behold the birds of the heaven, that they sow not,
neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not
ye of much more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit
unto [a]the measure of his life? 28 And why are ye anxious concerning raiment? Consider the
lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29 yet I say unto
you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God
doth so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the
oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 31 Be not therefore anxious,
saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be
clothed?
There were different factions within Judaism vying for public and ideological support. A
prophetic Judaism where "God desired mercy and not sacrifice", where those who were outcasted
by the priestly Judaism, the poor who couldn't afford the Priestly ritual, taxes that
enriched the Pharisaic elite that acted as a proxy for Rome, the alien, the sinner, etc. In
this prophetic tradition love your neighbor, forgiveness of debts, and extending your
neighbor to include this traditionally outcasted, alongside predictions of Judgement for the
temple elites, and return of Gods Kingdom. Jesus belonged in this tradition. Jesus was seen
as a political and religious messiah in this tradition.
Paul belonged to the Pharisaic tradition but had some sort of religious/mystical
conversion to move from prosecuting early Christian's to starting a Christ cult. Instead of
Jesus proclaiming God desired Mercy and not sacrifice, Paul claimed Jesus became the required
sacrifice. Instead of forgiveness of debts, mercy and acceptance being the way to God, Jesus
became the priestly ritual and Christianity became a cult. Richard Horsely has done great
research on First century Judaism and the historical Jesus. I also really like "the last
week" by Borg and crossan
This is a very similar thesis to one found in David Graebers "5000 Years of Debt",
interesting that it's the conclusion being arrived at by multiple scholars.
Graeber and Hudson have been friends, Hudson told me, for ten years, and Graeber, when
writing Debt; The First 5,000 Years, relied on Hudson's scholarship for his account of
ancient Mesopotamian economics
was just going to add the point about "Debt". I found Graeber's work to be fascinating,
especially how the relationship between "sin" and debt, and the implications on the
development and rise of Christianity, the rejection of homosexuality (not just wives and
daughters became sex slaves), and perhaps most importantly, how wrong market fundamentalist
are in their understanding of how economic systems evolve and their belief that market-based
systems are "natural", arising from a pre-market barter state.
It's an excellent alternative to the creation myths of mainstream economics. I've listened
to the audio book three times through and gotten more out of it each time. It's always a
pleasure to see 'conventional wisdom' dethroned by that most pernicious of enemies: actual
history.
looking forward to picking up a copy. loved graeber's Debt: and this seems to build on
that and adds Hudson's economic background to Graeber's anthropological one
There is no 'moral hazard'. This is a non sequitur designed to deceive like a lot of
'sponsored' economic theory. Every loan carries a risk and the risk is it won't be paid
back.
The moral hazard argument only applies if debts are paid back at once, thus debtors can
'wait' for a jubilee. In the real world debt is paid back in bits along with interest. So no
one will be waiting for jubilee in day to day economic life without facing consequences.
What a debt jubilee does is wipes the slate clean of loans that 'won't' be paid back, and
maintains systemic balance rather than concentration and exploitation.
It's also pretty telling that those who control the "moral hazard" meme rarely if ever
discuss the moral hazard of bailing out major Corps and Financial Houses or the "moral
hazard" of handing large Corps years of taxpayer contributions to various States.
Also overlooks that outside of personal debt, the world of corporate debt see "strategic
defaults" occur all the time with no moral hand wringing involved. Debts are a promise to pay
back, not an obligation.
I had an interesting argument with my brother-in-law several years ago, usually a very
level headed fellow who was going back to school for engineering in his 30s, as soon as I
brought up the possibility of dissolving student debt he grew quite heated. To
paraphrase:
"Why should I be punished for responsibly paying back my loans while someone else who was
irresponsible gets that debt annulled?"
Moral outrage for the debtors being forgiven their sin! Of course, a few years later with
his debt built up his tune had completely changed
Bankruptcy is essentially a form of debt jubilee that isn't society-wide on a specific
date. The big problem I see with student loan debt is that it can't be discharged in
bankruptcy. Individual bankruptcy is not something to enter into lightly, but there are a
number of people out there who can never pay back their student debt and they should be able
to go through bankruptcy and reduce it to a manageable level so they can live the rest of
their lives productively instead of indentured servitude. At the very least, Social Security
should not be garnished to pay student debt.
Very nice read! It has been voiced by many people that ECB should set and achieve higher inflation
targets, but it sticks to the 2% target, for 'price stability', while underachieving even on
that. Keeping inflation target extremely low should serve the creditors more than the
debtors.
Real "moral hazard" are people who enable this system.
I'll have to pick up a copy of the book, which sounds quite interesting. However, I cannot
go along with the argument made here that Western Civilization is less civilized than the
Ancient Near East because it did not include regular debt jubilees.
Western civilization, until very recently, had very strict anti-usury laws which prevented
most people from borrowing money at all, let alone falling into debt servitude. Indeed, while
laws varied widely from place to place, most victims of over-borrowing were royal courts and
aristocrats, not smallholders. And of course, since most moneylenders were Jewish, one
solution for debtors regularly employed was to simply run the creditors out of town or
indeed, the country. Isn't that a kind of jubilee?
Depends what you mean by "very recently." In theory, and according to canon law
(Deuteronomy 23:19) lending at interest was completely forbidden. But quite sophisticated
banking systems had developed by the end of the middle ages, and "usury" became increasingly
defined as just "excessive interest". There was a huge controversy over this in the 16th an
17th centuries, effectively ending with the creation of the Bank of England in 1694. Most
countries had (and still have) laws against "usury" – excessive rates of interest
– but that's a different issue. Many ordinary people until quite recently lived on
non-cash economies and so this was, as you say, largely an issue for the rich. Kings in those
days frequently went bankrupt, usually because of the need to finance wars. Interestingly,
one of the biggest borrowers was the Pope, in his role as a secular prince. He had an account
with the Medici Bank in Florence, which was usually overdrawn. Someone should write a history
of the effect of the debts of Princes on history.
Supposedly the richest man *ever* was Baron Fugger . His biography by Streider is a
great read. He kept the Pope's plate as collateral for some debt or another -- when the Pope
wanted to display it in some procession, the Baron agreed. He personally accompanied the
convoy that brought the plate to Rome and also marched with it in the procession. What a
message that must have sent!
He was a miner as well as banker. Some of those mines, like earlier Roman ones across the
Mediterranean, remain among the most polluted spots on earth.
Yes. Well, the problem with interest rates being too low is because the wealthy already
have enough money, nominally speaking, to buy the world a couple times over. There is already
too much money tucked away by the wealthy as assets, but because of interest and profits,
more money is always being taken out of circulation in the real economy, and sequestered in
the financial sector. Even as the government borrows to replace it in circulation, and so
prevent *deflation.* in the real economy. The money will (eventually) be destroyed, but since
the government(s) of the world are too weak, it won't be by collecting taxes, (a la MMT.)
The parallels of debt oligarchies to tech oligarchies, this article draws for me .. "So it was inevitable that, in the last century of American history, increasing numbers of
small firms became irredeemably unviable and lost their ability to compete. It likewise was
inevitable that the FANGS amassed the masses of entrepreneurial talent and established
themselves in parasitic oligarchies."
"by keeping "everybody above the break-even level" why? to enable – the planet to go from 7 Billion people to 14 Billion? in an age of AI and vast chasm of IQ's below 100 – what could be the purpose?
I'm going to get the book.
And I wonder if the notion of "IQ" and what we've come to believe is "intelligent" could have
been as manipulated as people's relationship with and beliefs about debt.
For what is the most basic condition of civilization, Hudson asks, other than societal
organization that effects lasting "balance" by keeping "everybody above the break-even
level"?
That's the core regulating idea Geoff Mann draws out of Keynes in his recent "In the Long
Run We Are All Dead." As best as I can tell his take on Keynes is accurate, and he's able to
make a case for aligning him with the likes of Hegel and -- drum roll -- Robespierre, who was
fiercely insistent on the guarantee of an "honorable poverty." In a way, they were all
theorists of the abyss, pragmatists who insisted on measures to make sure economies didn't
kill their members. I was particularly taken by the idea that the General Theory is not
systematic but rather an analysis of different modes of breakdown, e.g. the liquidity trap,
that must be compensated for.
It's also worth noting that, according to Mann, Keynes was a poor, indifferent reader of
Marx, and that a better appreciation would have led Keynes to see they were in significant
agreement on some crisis dynamics in capitalism.
"latifundia Italiam ("the great estates destroyed Italy"), as Pliny the Elder observed."
< the quote is lacking its verb; should read "latifundia perdidere Italiam".
Also, Hudson's quote in the addendum seems to partly lack indentation
Looking forward to reading it. I really enjoyed the History of debt by David Graeber so
would be interesting to go more in depth. Does Hudson discuss bankruptcy law? After all in most of the world most types of loans can
be discharged in a bankruptcy which is the closest we have to the Jubilees
Except, of course, for the 1.5 trillion student loan debt. "For us freedom has been understood to sanction the ability of creditors to demand payment
from debtors without restraint or oversight. This is the freedom to cannibalize society. This
is the freedom to enslave. This is, in the end, the freedom proclaimed by the Chicago School
and the mainstream of American economists"
I only mentioned it because it's an example of an enormous, oppressive, non-dischargeable
debt for something that used to be considered a public good, and almost free.
The No Creditor Left Behind Bankruptcy "Reform" Act of 2005 carved a big hole in the idea
of debt forgiveness in America. Neoliberalism at its finest. Rescinding those changes would
probably be a big win for Democrats at the polls and in governance.
Yes. Bankruptcy is hardly any kind of Jubilee. Any debt is much harder to discharge post
2005, including medical, which is the cause of half of bankruptcies according to filers.
But that would mean showing contrition by the very malefactors who (hear's looking at you
– Biden, Schumer, Clinton .. along with their counterparts across the aisle)
Don't expect rescission from the likes of them !
The Plutocrats are just 'Biden their time until they own everything.
He's the main one responsible for this as a U.S. Senator servicing those "little family
businesses" headquartered in Delaware.
Wonder the same about bankruptcy. IIRC, think the moneychangers' bankruptcy "reform" under
the Bush II regime turned it into a virtual debtors' prison, excluding several kinds of debt
from discharge, including student loans.
Student loans. Now there's a naked fleecing scam by the moneychangers. High interest, zero
risk, no forgiveness. A great racket if you can get it, like Medical Insurance, profiteering
guaranteed by Obamacare.
Hudson perceives things that should be but aren't obvious -- about money, power, and
freedom. The love of money may be the root of all evil, but it's ultimately a weapon wielded
in an insatiable lust for power, absolute, utterly corrupt power, the ownership and
enslavement of others. Inequality is not a flaw of rigged-market cannibalism; it's a feature,
a feature those at the top of the food chain have no intention of "fixing". The US empire,
imo, is the nadir of this evil, a kleptocracy dependent on perpetual mass-murder. The paradox
is, they may be more enslaved to their narcotic than anyone.
"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose." Janis Joplin
I wonder if Janis was an organ donor? These days, organ harvesting doesn't seem as
far-fetched. Were all those just urban legends about waking up in an ice bath with a note
attached about that impromptu kidney donation? /s
Regarding the point of moral hazard: what would Hudson's reply be to the person who says
"I paid off all my debts through hard work and abstinence; why should someone get a free pass
under the Jubilee. To yours truly, that would be ultimate slap in the face
Yes, the tab at the pub DID go away. A "pub" is "public house", in Babylonia too. The ale
wives weren't paid -- and they in turn didn't have to pay the palace or temples for the
consignment of beer.
A clean slate is a clean slate -- for consumer debts (NOT business debts).
It's necessary to read the book to get the details. i guarantee that nobody can deduce Bronze
Age finance abstractly.
Cooperation. Because we can decline the idea of debt right back to one thing. Cooperation.
When Graeber says "Money is Debt" he is right but he fails to define the root of debt.
Because debt is not money. It's just as the biologist here on NC said: If one amoeba hoarded
all the ATP it would simply kill off the rest of the amoeba because adenosinetriphosphate is
their source of energy, their "money".
The original sin is getting money mixed up by claiming
it is both a medium of exchange and a store of value. The word "store" goes off in its own
direction and becomes "hoard" and "deprive others". You get my drift? Debt must be
cooperation for the system to work.
A business loan used to help pay for workers' insurance – that would seem to be
worthy of consideration. A consumer loan used for an exotic vacation in the middle of an ocean – not so
worthy. A debt owed for child support or ex-wife (or husband) – would that be private or
public?
Found the source of my
misunderstanding: "In such cases rulers cancelled debts that were owed. (In that case, the ale women would
not owe the palace for the beer that had been advanced during the crop year.)" I had not put it together that the consumers were then forgiven by the ale women. Stands
to reason.
"i guarantee that nobody can deduce Bronze Age finance abstractly." Now that I can lift myself off the floor after the spastic convulsions of laughter that
brought on .. Kudos Sir . that was the best chortle I've had in yonks – !!!!!!! It is
probably the most hilarious synopsis of what ails about 90% of what we call economics at this
juncture. I think I'll have that put to paper in calligraphy and in a stunning frame on the wall
next to my Japanese charcoal art collection, of which sits on the wall around my comp
screen.
Let me get this straight your stance is basically, "I had to suffer through injustice and
I survived, why should anybody else get to have any justice?!"
It seems to favor mortgaged 'owners' of homes, if those loans are not considered
'business.' And disadvantages renters (who are thinking of borrowing to buy in the near future).
The answer is so that those other people will be able to sustain the consumption that is
necessary to absorb your production so that you don't get laid off -- but this requires an
understanding of macroeconomics unavailable in the current economic orthodoxy.
I've seen these arguments supporting debt forgiveness many, many times, but I have yet to
see any details on how this would be functionally accomplished today. I don't disagree with
the sentiment that debt has become a huge problem for many people, but sentiments aren't road
maps.
One person's debt is another person's credit. If you wipe out the debt on one side, you
extinguish the asset on the other (unless, of course, the sovereign government "buys" this
debt from the creditors in an eminent domain type fashion). Perhaps in ancient times
creditors were mostly well-healed oligarchs who could survive the loss. Today, much of the
debt is bundled and securitized and held by all sorts of individuals and institutions (think
mutual funds, pension plans, 401k's etc). While the one-percenters could absorb the hit, I'm
not so sure about those lower on the ladder who thought their retirement savings were secure
in a "safe" bond fund.
At some point, supporters of debt forgiveness need to reconcile their position with the
fact that the extinguishing of debt is, in effect, a sovereign action taking the property of
another on a scale without much parallel in modern society.
You could exchange equity interest for debt for business loans or loans secured by an
underlying asset. (mortgage loan). You could extend the time period or write down the interest rate enabling smaller
payments. You could have the Fed buy the debt, as you mentioned, and then forgive it. You could have the fed take over payments, or a portion of the payment, thereby proving
relief for the debtor while still keeping the creditor whole.
I think in the Ancient Middle East the government was the most important creditor (with
the debt arising from tax arrears) so yes, it was easier to forgive a debt then than now.
As I wrote a few lines before, another option (which has an advantage of having been in
use for centuries) is a bankruptcy.
Credit is an essential tool for stimulating any economy. Farmers often need funds to buy
seeds and get through the winter, auto manufacturers couldn't possibly survive if they had to
demand full payment up front for their cars, etc., etc (think up your own examples).
An intelligent state (or rather an idealized intelligent state) can and should issue
credit or print money to best utilize the society's productive potential. The problems begin
when the state allows this crucial function to be monopolized by the oligarchs, who unlike
the state are in the game only for profit, not for upgrading the overall well being (or war
readiness, if you prefer) of the society. A state that can print its own money can either
dispense with interest charges or forgive debt when it the debt/interest burden is excessive.
Since private lenders, who don't own the government, can't print money, they're in no
position to forgive debt. The advantage of maintaining a belief in the sanctity of debt, and
therefore the immiseration of the debtors, is that it allows the oligarchs to amass
staggering wealth, and build fabulous Xanadus in Malibu or on Long Island. You really
wouldn't want to live in a world where nobody could afford a thirty thousand square foot
house, would you?
At some point, supporters of debt forgiveness need to reconcile their position with
the fact that the extinguishing of debt is, in effect, a sovereign action taking the
property of another on a scale without much parallel in modern society.
Let me suggest a parallel or two: the acquisition of property by means of enforced
indebtedness combined with creditor fraud that occurred in the Great Foreclosure Carnage
around 2008? Or the appropriation of the lion's share of economic growth since 1970 to the
richest 1% or so?
You may have solved the problem right here: the sovereign government "buys" this debt." MMT is the perfect mechanism to do this. It accomplishes what the Temple could do in the
past. Then, the banking and insurance services required by society can be shifted to the
National Postal Service. Speculation, for those who need it, can be continued in the casinos,
where it belongs. And then we can have a real discussion about the "resource base" we call
Earth and look at ways that we can live within it, and even possibly beyond it, without
irreversibly damaging the ecology we need to revisit all this again, and again, and again
I would email your friend back and say, "you write like this is a bad thing!??!!?"
Creditors SHOULD be required to exercise judgment and restraint in extending credit. It's
moral hazard in the other direction if the government lets them squeeze the life out of
people.
Maybe its cause I have an M.div. How is this earth shattering? Its been the basic view of every dusty old Old Testament
churchman for years.
Sounds like Hudson skipped medieval cannon law and early modern eras to try and bolster the
"rediscovery" angle.
This is old hat:
Creditors aiming to own you- proverbs
Jubilee- Torah
Debts- they stoped saying that only in the 60s but I learned it like that.
But Hudson really shoulda resisted the urge to name drop Jesus quite so hard and make him
the economic revolutionary. Or is he trying to give reasons for his probable opponents to
write him off?
We on here are the choir. What do the folks in the pews here?
If he'd of kept the prophetic, he had then an ability to reach down into the prophets
which condemn growing estates, refusing jubilees, and even condemned sacrificing Children
(for material benefits from Idols) he would then be wielding a whole and big religion stick
Not just casting yet another 1800s historical Jesus.
I think you're overlooking the difference between prophecy and history here. Jesus was
another quite noisy prophet, saying what prophets say: "God's gonna getcha!" And of course He
got His for saying that, as they usually do.
We've been ignoring prophets while sanctifying them for a very long time. Hudson stitches
them back into the fabric of history. He takes them far more seriously and literally than
canon lawyers have. He helps me to understand their topsy-turvy justification of–to
build on your delightful auto-correct–cannon law.
What is the trigger point for debt forgiveness? When does it operate and upon what class
of debtors? Is it predictable or unpredictable? Is it frequent or infrequent?
It needs to be frequent enough yet to some extent unpredictable, or a class of predatory
debtors will be created, piling up debt immediately before the jubilee.
This is a means of redistribution of wealth. But aren't there better means, such as a
minimum basic income AKA universal SSI and other social entitlements? Of course, this assumes
that government seeks public welfare and is not merely the collective will of a predatory
oligarchy. Also not sure how it applies to the redistribution of wealth between nations.
If a student and medical debt jubilee, for example, were coupled with free tuition at
public colleges and M4A there would be no accumulation of debt going forward. I don't know if
there are comparable systemic changes for other types of debt, and most of this discussion is
over my head as far as theology or economic history. However, if it's about a religious,
social justice, or moral force for forgiving debts, it would include re-framing how we think
of society and our obligations to each other – not just debt forgiveness but changes to
structures to guard against further unsustainable debt.
WW I, the Russian Revolution, and WW II make one wonder about the definition of "Western
Civilization".
Each of these occurred after a period of very high wealth and income inequality with large
public and private debts in some cases.
the past century of history makes one wonder how smart it is for the 0.1% to focus on
increasing wealth and income inequality. It frequently does not end well for anybody.
Skeletons of wealthy and "noble" people at the bottom of mine shafts is often proof of
that.
And Piketty shows that these events interrupted and temporarily reversed the accumulation
of wealth, ushering in the abundance of the mid twentieth century.
'"Classical Antiquity," Hudson writes, "replaced the cyclical idea of time and social
renewal with that of linear time. Economic polarization became irreversible, not merely
temporary" (p. xxv). In other words: "The idea of linear progress, in the form of
irreversible debt and property transfers, has replaced the Bronze Age tradition of cyclical
renewal" '
I remember reading one of John Michael Greer's posts a few years back that pointed out the
differences in Western concept of time-as-linear and other, earlier societies', concept of
time as circular. We, in the West, think things will become increasingly better, (or worse)
right up to infinity. GDP will always grow, the stock market will always rise, freedom will
always increase.
Other societies thought of events as cyclical. The early growth of spring blossomed into
the fruitfulness of summer, then decayed in autumn and lay fallow in winter (or whatever
passed for winter where you were living). That's how Nature worked. And, it is inevitable
that societies grow, prosper, decline, die, then are renewed.
And, using the circle in deliberative sessions probably leads to different results than
the usual Western, linear one, of having the 'leaders' sitting in front, and the 'followers'
facing them in a subservient position. Witness the setups of most city council chambers.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote about it at length in Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle
(1987).
His immediate topic was the history of the discovery of deep time, the idea that processes
observable today could explain vast changes in the earth if allowed to act over long enough
spans of time. Being Gould, he considers cultural applications beyond geology and
evolution.
One application is that the "biblical" version of a jubilee year was by the time of the
writing of the bible an ancient idea that had survived several thousand years of middle
eastern history. That writing was contemporaneous with the early Greeks and predates the
impact of Alexander and Roman rule over the eastern Mediterranean.
Cycles are real (see Nature); linear progress is delusional.
Which is why our deluded system of imaginary linear growth is subject to chronic booms and
busts which bring cyclical reality back -- Every. Single. Time.
I am troubled by these statements in the post:
" to the extent that it will be understood,'earth-shattering' in both intent and effect."
"Just as this is a profound book, it is so densely written that it is profoundly difficult to
read."
I fear too much that is "earth-shattering" will be lost if it is profoundly difficult.
Readers less able or less determined will let the interpretations of others sway their
understanding. Those others may not share the author's perspective or intent in their
interpretations, and they may not be of persons of honesty and good will.
How would Hudson respond to the person who laments " I worked and deprived my self to pay
back my loan. Why should someone else get a free ride, if I did not"?
I guess he would say that there is another moral hazard, on part of the lender which has
to be balanced against it. If I as a lender know that I can collect any loan that I make up
to enslaving the debtor if he falls in arrears then I don't assume any risk and have no skin
in the game.
Times change, we learn from mistakes, and change our ways? Before we did the wrong thing,
now we're getting it right?
Why does someone else being done justice hurt you? It's not a "free ride," either; that
implies getting something for nothing. Farmers wiped out by drought were hardly getting a
free ride when they were forgiven debts for grain that didn't grow in fields that didn't
exactly plant and tend themselves. People often do immense amounts of work only for the
bottom to drop out on the way back from the well.
One day I took a fall off a 4′ ladder, helping a friend paint their house,
shattering my left wrist. The $20,000 bill sent my life into a tailspin. Finally declared
bankruptcy, but I've still got a few years of purgatory.
That was no "free ride," friend.
I paid back my student loans, and it sucked. Literally sucked the food off my table many a
month. And I would rejoice at someone else not having to go through that. Education should be
free, to begin with, so relieving people of crushing burdens they shouldn't have at all would
be doubly enjoyable.
The answer is so that those other people will be able to sustain the consumption that is
necessary to absorb your production so that you don't get laid off -- but this requires an
understanding of macroeconomics unavailable in the current economic orthodoxy.
Jesus was not just driving the debt collectors out of the temple, he was driving out all
of the capitalists :
Mark 11:15 KJV
15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out
them that sold and bought in the temple , and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers,
and the seats of them that sold doves ;
16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple .
17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all
nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.
So he was kicking out people who were selling things in the temple, not just the money
changers, all the capitalists. A vessel carried goods and he did not even want to see them in
the temple.
It is not enough to end debt, because that still leaves us with capitalism.
The VERY NEXT verse is Mark 12, The Parable of the Tenants, literally telling the
capitalists that the people will rise up if you follow capitalism and then they will have to
kill the renters.
Oh, no, you don't. In the story it's the renters. My bad. But the renters in the story
would, I suppose, be equivalent to the rentiers we find ourselves plagued with today
"That is what creditors really wanted: Not merely the interest as such, but the collateral
-- whatever economic assets debtors possessed, from their labor to their property, ending up
with their lives"
Creditors=Predators
I would argue that it would be more appropriate to say that the
prædia/latifundia explains the ascent of the medieval feudal order rather than
explaining the decline of the Roman empire. The fall of the WRE is a multi-faceted phenomenon
with no singular cause, and besides it's a bit suspect to say that something that came about
6 centuries earlier caused it. The latifundia provided the template for social order
that would fill the void left by the collapse of the WRE, reaching its apex in high medieval
manorialism.
Late to comment on this but I always thought it would be an interesting thought to write a
history of the Western Roman Empire backwards in time starting maybe at the early middle ages
as the final presence of the Empire itself. As the end point of the Empire. As a culmination
of a process and working back tracing each step that was "caused" by the previous one
stretching back to its beginning in the 2d Cent BCE Rome-Italy and the economic problems of
debt, loss of the small farming economy, and the political social consequences. The Roman
victory in the Second Punic as the beginning of it as an Imperium with the Middle Ages as its
logical end, or so to speak, final "perfection".
Fascinating scholarship with very far reaching and profound implications, but I'm not
really satisfied with Hudson's answer to the friend of John Siman. The question posed is a
very fair one and of a very practical nature, concerning the possible deleterious effects of
systemic debt forgiveness on credit/lending. Hudson's answer, at least as it's presented
here, sidesteps the question and instead dives into a discussion of morality. I would think
loan durations, terms, interest rates, and generalized credit availability would all vary
greatly depending on whether or not debt cancellation was a regularly occurring, scheduled
event or a more fluid and unpredictable event based on political winds and the whims of
whatever autocrat happens to be in power. Regardless of the morality of a particular
debt/monetary system, requests for more information concerning the likely side effects of
debt forgiveness programs and any lessons regarding best debt forgiveness practices from the
ancient civilizations who practiced it are very much in order if Hudson is making the
argument that systematic debt cancellation is preferable to our present system of lifelong
compounding debts and generational indebtedness. I'm certainly not saying Hudson is off base
here, I like where he's going with his scholarship, but these are inevitable questions.
Anyone interested in the history Hudson has unearthed will want to know if he believes debt
forgiveness could work in a modern, interconnected, industrial society or if it only works
with pre-industrial grain farming peasants and a small class of aristocrats.
Oh my, perhaps the system that allowed the entire human world to be poisoned into
extinction would end. That would be awful, so many portfolios would be ruined.
Who is going to lend money for a loss? Credit card lenders manage risk with high interest
rates, limited credit lines, and closing accounts at will: good luck paying for college on
those terms. I'd guess the generous loan forgiveness in ancient times was made possible
through slave labor and spoils of war
What if students didn't have to pay for college? Or patients, health care? Pretty sure
I'd've done a much better job of spreading that money around than the deep pockets it went
into. Maybe, in not being unduly indebted myself, I could've helped others do likewise, at
least in my small way.
Where's the money going to come from? We have all the money we need, and then some, for
the things we deem necessary. Ask Wall St. and the Pentagon.
So I guess my question to all this is : why has Western civilization not collapsed? What's
the mechanisms that we have used that say, the Romans, didn't?
Who says we're not collapsing right now? The plow gave farmers mechanical advantage to speed things up. The steam engine, then
internal combustion, did likewise. Computers are aka information engines.
Sure, we've got immense momentum, way more than ever, but we're headed straight for
Climate Change Peak. And the morons in the cockpit? I can't even.
For your decades long, truth to power investigative and intellectual rigor. The
experience(s) from a young age, up to and including your work on modern money and now this
latest book.
Truly a view from a life long perspective the likes of which may never come along again.
A voice that is worthy of attention.
I wonder about the sources of debt in ancient times? It wasn't driven by consumerism like todays debt is, was it? Hopefully the book will speak to this.
Satisfying explanation of the failure of European and now North American society to
achieve civilization due to our reliance on Greek and Roman precedents for our public acts.
We were besotted by the birth of democracy in Athens and the abuse of force in Rome.
I shall buy this book, not because I am unaware of the basic argument but because I expect
Michael Hudson has a great many illustrations of the improved society that assyriologists
have discovered.
It is a great personal delight to know Hudson values Arnold Toynbee, one of my heroes and
a fine human being. Thanks NC for the review.
John Siman here. You seem to be one of only a few people posting comments who understands
the depth and vastness and importance of Hudson's project. You also love Toynbee. All this
makes me very happy!
I've never read Toynbee and my library only has a couple of his books. But I've read
elsewhere that he fell from scholarly favor in part because of his critical view of Zionism.
From Wikipedia:
Toynbee maintained, among other contentions, that the Jewish people have neither
historic nor legal claims to Palestine, stating that the Arab
"population's human rights to their homes and property over-ride all other rights in
cases where claims conflict." He did concede that the Jews, "being the only surviving
representatives of any of the pre-Arab inhabitants of Palestine, have a further claim to
a national home in Palestine." But that claim, he held, is valid "only in so far as it
can be implemented without injury to the rights and to the legitimate interests of the
native Arab population of Palestine."[30]
Time for a Toynbee revival? And while I'm a great fan of Hudson's writing on this blog and would humbly decline any
challenge to his scholarship, I do wonder about the notion of framing all of human history in
terms of money. Surely creditors only have power as long as they have force to back it up.
The book's thesis sounds a tad reductionist..
Pierre Bourdieu would probably say that the societal relations at issue are those of
power. Debtor-Creditor relations, using "money" as shorthand, are an expression of them.
Power and its absence define the rights and obligations of debtor and creditor – and
the manner in which they can be modified.
Hudson seems to be saying that his historical research tells him that the political
leaders in the ancient societies he has studied reserved to themselves the power periodically
to alter those relationships.
The purpose of doing so was as to keep society functioning by meeting demands that
conflict with and at times are superior to the normal need to repay debt. Periodic debt
forgiveness is equally normal, in the manner that medieval farmers let their land lie fallow
so as to bear fruit another year.
Rootless, unrestrained capital would plant the same ground every year, exhaust it, and
move on, leaving behind the detritus of its "creative destruction". For Hudson, a political
ruler with nowhere to move on to, feels compelled instead to play steward.
Under present day neoliberalism, most political leaders have out a less ambitious role for
themselves: they ask permission from capital to blow wind. Restraining it from unsustainably
harvesting every available resource – cotton, coal, fish, data, the earth – is
not within their normal purview.
I feel like I'm out of phase here after bringing up Toynbee in the early years of NC or is
it just a flash back thingy . society as a journey vs. a harbor.
I am reminded of this from the Merchant of Venice.
"Go with me to a notary, seal me there
Your single bond; and, in a merry sport,
If you repay me not on such a day,
In such a place, such sum or sums as are
Express'd in the condition, let the forfeit
Be nominated for an equal pound
Of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken
In what part of your body pleaseth me".
Yes!! And do you know Horace's second epode, about Alfius the fænerator =
usurer?
Beatus ille qui procul negotiis,
ut prisca gens mortalium,
paterna rura bobus exercet suis,
solutus omni fænore .
Hudson's work totally illuminates this poem!
To answer the eternal question, often posed by concerned bankers or their supporters:
-- Wouldn't debt cancellations just take away any incentive for people to pay back loans
and, thus, take away the incentive to give loans?
While Dr. Hudson's answer is technically correct, it misses the mark. The question is
filled with incorrect assumptions and moral certainty. A better answer would be:
1st. If the bank is stupid enough to make the loan, they are stupid enough to lose it. The
bank must take the consequence of making a un-payable loan. And.
2nd. The bank has far more resources to know if the loan is repayable than the person getting
the loan. Since the bank 'knows' more, it should take on more responsibility for making the
loan than the person getting the loan. And so, back to reason #1 above, stupid bank loses
stupid loan.
Now when said banker or supporter starts to sputter about how you don't understand how the
world works, or how people must do the right thing, etc., reply back with: "Banks' don't give
loans, they sell loans." The price the borrower pays for the loan is both the face
value of the amount borrowed plus the price the bank sets on 'selling' that amount of money
(the interest rate of the loan). And that is if the borrower pays back the loan with money.
Otherwise the borrower pays back with the collateral used as a Plan B for the lender. So
banks 'give' (sell) loans if and only if:
1. they can make money loaning to that person (or business, or country). 'Make money' means
either getting the collateral for the loan or getting the purchase price (cost of the loan)
in full.
OR
2. they are 'requested' by a higher authority to make the loan. A government or even just a
higher up boss could 'request' that the loan officer approve the loan, regardless of the
borrower's ability to repay. This accounts for the fraud and bribery too often seen with the
banker's side of debt.
And while I'm at it, further reasons why debt should be retired and not paid back: The
consequence to society of a bank not getting repaid is much less than the consequence to
society of the individual being forced to pay back a loan that the individual can not
reasonably do. The society is not that much troubled by a bank losing 'its' money than its
members being forced into debt slavery via loan foreclosures and such. Second, the bank
should not get more money or services back from a defaulted loan than what the loan itself
was worth. Society is poorly served when the bank (and its officers) get rich by foreclosing
on loans.
Lastly, and deserving its own paragraph: Yes, the borrower usually has a gun to their head
-- want a good job? get a college degree or training, which needs a school loan to get; want
groceries on the table (but not earning enough wages to cover it)? get a payday loan; want to
make your small company's payroll (but did not see a downturn in the economy)? get a bridging
loan, etc., etc., etc.
The central question about debt, loans, and contracts is: Is a contract fair if it is
'your brains or your signature on the paper'? In case mafia bosses are reading this, the
answer is NO, it's not. And unfair contracts are not or should not be legally enforceable.
The sanctity of the contract rests on a foundation of is it a 'free and even' entered into
agreement.
What could have facilitated debt jubilees in ancient societies was the fact that the new
rulers which overthrew the old as a result of frequent wars, found it convenient to eliminate
the former propertied classes to win over the support of the indebted and enslaved commoners.
'Wiping the slate clean' could have been just a measure to win political legitimacy.
Finally someone dared to say it.
The debt economy is sustainable only by debt forgiveness: Personal bankruptcy as in USA (prior
to 2005) Or as corporations all around the world enjoy it. Remember how many times did
Trump's corporations went bankrupt?
There is a mass debt forgiveness that is not so obvious yet it is very effective to keep debt
economies alive and well. Moderate and higher inflation is a form of creeping debt forgivness
en mass. The fixed interest rates play a major role in having inflation forming a slow but
sure debt forgiveness.
Do you wonder why Ben Bernanke called for higher inflation in the midst of the GFC? Because
the moderate inflation is a crucial part of debt forgiveness that debt economy has to have in
order to function properly.
Jesus only shortened the Moses' orders on what to do with poverty in Deutoronomy 15.
Second part of Lord's Prayer is a shorter version of Moses' orders on Debt Jubilee. Even then
they knew the importance of Debt forgiveness and especially since rates were 20% all till
recently.
Today, with lower rates and inflation the need is lesser but personal bankruptcy is an
imediate help to debtors.
Since banks create money as issuing a loan and destroy money as loan is repaid (and only
interest stay as bank's profit) it is very usefull for a bank to have debt forgiven even when
loan is secured. Banks do not have to sell the property underpriced (as they usually do) to
get rid of liability that unperforming loan creates. There are expenses in selling property
especially under the price.
It is much better if the bankruptcy judge allows banks to erase their and debtors liabilities
without money being returned. It saves the banks and debtors.
This is all easy to learn when you know that banks create money when issuing a loan and
then destroy the money as the loan is returned. that is a Law.
Banks create money and then destroy it.
By forgiving the debts everyone benefits.
Same goes with moderate inflation 4-20%, everyone benefits.
A possible case of debt jubilee in our times comes to mind. In India opposition Congress
Party has promised that if it wins general elections in 2019 it will work to forgive the
debts of poor farmers. Here the motivation of this party might not be so much as to relieve
the distress of destitute farmers, many of whom are driven to suicides, as to get votes and
regain power.
Many a time benefits accrue to disadvantaged groups as an inadvertent collateral effect of
conflict of contending power groups and not as a deliberate benign act.
I guess the question is whether the local landsharks who hold these debts will observe the
edicts of New Delhi .
Speaking of which, it would be interesting to see whether and under what conditions the
jubilee model occurred in the Oriental civilizations, all of which were all too well
acquainted with rural usury. I know the Chinese empires had state granaries as insurance
against famines.
But I also recall an 1950s book "Slaves of the Cool Mountains". This discussed the
subcaste of non-Han families in the remote mountain valleys of Yunnan Province who had been
in multigenerational debt bondage and whose unusual economic order proved especially
challenging for the Communist authorities to reinvent. (I also think these areas suffered
horribly in the later famines)
Also, the Parsees (Farsis) of Mumbai were bankers to the Mughals for centuries, but I
suppose that would be state banking, not rural usury.
What distinguishes modern times from the ancient is that propertied classes in many
developed societies have strengthened their political stranglehold, which increases by the
day thanks to new artificial intelligence technologies, so much so that it appears
inconceivable how they could be displaced at all.
In ancient societies most rulers were frequently changing military adventurers and conquerors
and there was still some disconnect between power and wealth; but in modern there has
developed a close convergence between the two. In ancient societies political power was
arbiter of wealth but in modern, developed ones at least, wealth has become arbiter of
power.
Wealthy are the creditors who will not let debtors of the hook easily. I am afraid, we could
be moving to a dystopian future a la Aldous Huxley and George Orwell where rulers and asset
owners would form a same class, the ruled being little better than serfs and plebeians.
Look around. Do we not see the incipient signs already?
Sorry, I dont get it. Very much with the critical reviewer on this one:
"Wouldn't debt cancellations just take away any incentive for people to pay back loans and,
thus, take away the incentive to give loans?"
Hudson's response:
-- Creditors argue that if you forgive debts for a class of debtors – say, student
loans – that there will be some "free riders," and that people will expect to have bad
loans written off. This is called a "moral hazard," as if debt writedowns are a hazard to the
economy, and hence, immoral.
I bed to disagree. The argument is not a moral one. It is an economic one. If I expect my
dept to be written off, i have very little incentive to pay it back. As a creditor on the
other hand I would not care if i get my money from the state or the debtor. However if the
state if going to give money to people anyway we could arrange that by direct transfers and
spare us the trouble of calling it "debt", which we all know is not really debt, but just a
temporary pseudo-debt that will eventually be covered by the state.
I understand Hudson implies that the harm from taking away incentives to pay back debt is
lesser than the harm from dependencies arising from debt in general. I would like a
clarification for which kind of loans this actually holds true and would like to remind the
insame rise of wealth, well-being, long-livety of humanity since the rise of organised
credit/ loan systems.
You may expect there to be a window between the moment where your debt is due, and where a
debt jubilee could occur. So if you don't pay back your debt, bad things may happen: your
kids are incited to pay on your behalf, your house is sold to pay back the debt, your
paycheck is garnished whatever is in the law, and you should end up paying back after
all.
But if you have no kids, no house and no paycheck big enough to be garnished, no debt is paid
back, because no debt can be paid back, and on the day of the jubilee, you walk out clean,
but still with no money, no house and no significant paycheck.
What does change, however, is the risk factor for the creditor: debts that cannot be paid
back, will not be paid back: not by the debtor and not by the state.
So the bank should think twice before handing out a student loan for a very expensive
university where nobody finds work because they offer useless degrees.
As far as I can see, a jubilee would apply to any kind of debt.
Sorry about coming in late to this discussion. I want to comment on the earlier mention of
"Original Sin." I encourage those interested to read "Adam, Eve and the Serpent" by Elaine
Pagels. One of her theses is that Original Sin was a doctrine created by Augustine of Hippo
and that it fit very neatly with a drive to convince the Roman rulers to make Christianity
the official religion. After all, if humans are fundamentally flawed, they need a strong
ruler to tamp down the chaos. As one poster noted, Original Sin is not found in Judaism, and
if it dated from the story of Adam and Eve, you would expect it to be.
Actually, in my case, the Bronze Age angle is of particular interest. I don't mean to offer too much information, but hope that someone can perhaps pass this
info along to Dr. Hudson's publisher . it's not the shipping that plagues me if I have to
order via Amazon, it's the font sizes and the narrow kerning of printed pages 8^p
My eyes vastly prefer a screen reader to enlarge font sizes -- despite my
relative youth 8^\
Also, tablets and phones are vastly more portable.
Calls to my two favorite Seattle-area bookshops today went something like, "Wow, that book
looks interesting . We're going to have trouble ordering from that small publisher It would
be really hard for us to get you a copy -- why don't you just order it from Amazon
?"
In my case, ordering from Amazon would take about 3 weeks for delivery, which is hardly
the end of the world however, if I can't get it on a screen reader, then I would not be able
to take advantage of bumping up the font size >8^\
I hope that your publisher will be able to release the eBook version sooner, rather than
later. They might also contact iBooks to get a notification in Apple's system so that people
could at least see the book will be available there soon -- that way, iBooks can
automatically let me pre-purchase the book, and their system will download it and notify
me when the content is available.
FWIW, I have two of your books via iBooks ( The Monsters, Killing the Host ).
Very simple to carry around that way. Also, ginormous font size
Sorry to be Mr Pedant but The Monster is not by this Michael Hudson but a Dubya who's more
of a journalist if memory serves.
That being said, The Monster is a jaw-dropping work and will always pay re-reading after each
financial crash.
The new MH tome drops on my doormat on Monday all decks are being cleared as we speak for the
time that will be known to history as the Great Seclusion of 2018
Okay feeling silly , and thanks for the correction!
I busted through "The Monsters" some years back and must have mixed up authorship in my
memory archives. Yipes!
I was thinking that if mine arrived mid-Dec, it would be a grand northern latitude time of
year for an invigorating read. But it's all about font size (also, backlighting!)
Thanks again, and congrats on clearing your decks ;-)
Umm Sellers soft shoe at the door after spilling the rice .
After all the wrangling with the beard years ago_cough_ Babylonian debates, not to mention
the early refugees exodus out of the Sumerian collapse, only to experience a population boom
in near historical time, leading to the first city states in the region and all the baggage
that goes with it – evolution of everything.
Only to experience waves of external forces until it becomes de-facto state religion.
But yeah . some tell us human history is only 5000 years old or there about, never mind
the ad hoc assemblage as it drifts through history and the propensity of some to do a
Jefferson's bible treatment to forward personal biases – usual suspects IMO.
At certain points in social history, debt resistance becomes quite literally a matter of
war. Lenders will kill you if that is part of getting their money back. Debtors may have to kill the lenders to get out of debt. It is not always a heroic process. One of the most strident goals of the Nazi Party was to take over the Allied governments
that were imposing reparations.
For more perspective, see my article on "Ending the Evil of Student Loans" on this blog a
couple of months ago.
The question of the relationship between the oligarchs of ancient Rome and the kings who
forgave debts in even more ancient bronze age civilizations can be seen in high relief in the
life of Julius Caesar. The Roman Senate was a den of very rich thieves, while Caesar was a
charismatic leader popular with the common people. He was hated by the Roman elite because he
wanted to make the Roman state work by supporting the common people, while the Senate wanted
to be free to enrich themselves at the expense of both the people and the state. Caesar toyed
with the issue of becoming a king, leading the Senators to hate and fear him, and the people
to cheer him. Indeed, his comment on one occasion when the crowd would crown him king finds
echo in the gospels, for Caesar said "My name is not King, but Caesar!" During the passion
week of Christ, the chief priests cried out "We have no king but Caesar!" (John 19:15) Caesar
worked to find land for his retired soldiers so that they could raise the next generation of
citizen soldiers. Roman estates progressively decreased the supply of citizen soldiers, and
forced increasing reliance on mercenaries.
If anyone wants to follow up on the life of Caesar, take a look at "Caesar: Politician and
Statesman" by Matthias Gelzer or "Julius Caesar" by Phillip Freeman. Freeman ends his book
with a report by Thomas Jefferson that Alexander Hamilton told him "The greatest man who ever
lived was Julius Caesar."
If anyone wants to take the question of Julius Caesar one step further in considering
Hudson's new book, they might want to read "Et tu, Judas? Then Fall Jesus!" by Gary Courtney
or "Jesus Was Caesar" by Francesco Carrota. While taking somewhat different paths to their
conclusion, both find reasons to conclude that Julius Caesar was the historical Jesus, while
the gospels are allegorical retellings of Caesar's life, set in a Jewish milieu, If so,
Christianity began its career in a cauldron of political and religious strife and propaganda,
not so different from what we live with now. After all, both died around Passover, and big
things happened on the third day!
It is a truism that Christianity began in a cauldron of political and religious strife.
Jews were living in a militarily occupied Palestine, a troublesome peripheral territory in
the Roman empire, one that had been assaulted culturally for centuries by the allure of the
Hellenistic world and assaulted physically for millenia by competing empires.
It is common to draw parallels from the surviving accounts of Jesus with the cultures of
Greece and Roman (conceding that Rome had a culture other than barbarism). Greek language and
culture was the lingua franca of the time.
Crossan, for one, points out that tales of divine origins and virgin births were common
when poet historians sought to explain the earthly power of emperors. What was uncommon was
to associate them with the cultural meaning of the life of an itinerant preacher and peasant
village Jew.
Humans understand the new by comparing it with the a parallel from the known. But to
conclude that the historical Julius was the historical Jesus confuses the real and the
metaphorical.
Naked Capitalism with a review of Michael Hudson's new
book, And Forgive Them Their Debts: Lending, Foreclosure, and Redemption from Bronze Age
Finance to the Jubilee Year. It digs into the ancient history of debt and forgiveness
which is, for obvious reasons, not taught in the neo-liberal 'west':
Nowhere, Hudson shows, is it more evident that we are blinded by a deracinated, by a
decontextualized understanding of our history than in our ignorance of the career
of Jesus. Hence the title of the book: And Forgive Them Their Debts and the cover
illustration of Jesus flogging the moneylenders -- the creditors who do not forgive debts
-- in the Temple. For centuries English-speakers have recited the Lord's Prayer with the
assumption that they were merely asking for the forgiveness of their trespasses ,
their theological sins : " and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who
trespass against us ." is the translation presented in the Revised Standard Version of the
Bible. What is lost in translation is the fact that Jesus came "to preach the gospel to the
poor to preach the acceptable Year of the Lord": He came, that is, to proclaim a Jubilee
Year, a restoration of deror for debtors: He came to institute a Clean Slate
Amnesty (which is what Hebrew דְּרוֹר
connotes in this context).
---
Back in July I wrote
that there is no Jewish race or Jewish people. There are only followers of the Jewish
religion strewn all over the world. Prof. Shlomo Sand makes a similar point and also debunks
some other religious fairytales:
Our political culture insists on seeing the Jews as the direct descendants of the
ancient Hebrews. But the Jews never existed as a 'people' – still less as a
nation
---
The UAE/Saudi alliance stopped their latest attempt to conquer Hodeidah port in Yemen.
They try to sell that as a humanitarian step. But the attack was failing when their
mercenaries ran into a wall of mines and missile attacks. They took a large number of
casualties. Videos:
1 , 2 .
I am copying my comment from the last open thread about the Hudson interview to below
@ karlof1 with the Michael Hudson book review
A quote from the review of the book
"
This innate tendency to social polarization arising from debt unforgiveness is the original
and incurable curse on our post-eighth-century-B.C. Western Civilization, the lurid birthmark
that cannot be washed away or excised.
"
I will write again that the problem I have with Michael Hudson is that he does everything BUT
question why the existence of private finance still.
Debt unforgiveness is only one symptom of the systemic cancer humanity of the West faces.
That systemic cancer is private finance/God of Mammon mentality. The incentives are all
wrong. Paradise California is the latest example. God Of Mammon greed compelled PG&E to
not maintain their infrastructure properly and they kept the equipment running when they
should have shut it down. PG&E has admitted complicity and also said that they didn't
have enough insurance to cover this tragedy and would go under. Someone representing
California government oversight of power providers have stated basically that PG&E is too
big to fail and they will be backstopped by taxpayers.
So how is debt forgiveness of any sort going to fix the underlying problem? It is not and
unless you have government managing any debt forgiveness instead of private folks, you will
have some form of genocide by the rich.
Until and unless Michael Hudson calls out private finance as the systemic problem Western
society has I will consider him an economic Sheep Dog like Bernie Sanders is a political
one
Thanks to b for the coverage of Syria on the ground.
The US has lost in Ukraine (US + 'allies' - Germany in first place), and lost in Syria ( +
Israel, KSA, Turkey crossed purposes..)
Syria. When Foreign Policy publishes The Syrian War is over and America has lost in
July 2018, it is kinda official...(don't recommend the article) and/or a warning to change
tack or up the game..
The upshot of the defeats. Internal groups, manipulated grass-roots-stuff (paid) -
so-called rebels (paid) / despots, dictators, corporations, on a rapacious bent, looking for
support and pie sharing - 'mafia' types who have their own code of profit-sharing - +
others.. in X country, will be very wary or will not enter into a partnership with the US as
it is not successful.
As the losses can't be acknowledged, the US will create as much hysterical clamor and
obfuscation as possible.
Exs. the Assad must go red-line demand has been seriously degraded now muted. The
emphasis at present seems to be on a 'new constitution' for Syria, i.e. the very lowest form
of law-warfare which will not succeed. As if a bunch of foreignors can draft the thing.. De
Mistura has quit.
The problem is that money is a voucher system and as such, the social contract enabling mass
society to function, yet we assume it to be a commodity to be mined from society. Which goes
to the western view of society as emergent from autonomous individuals, rather than
individuals as expressions of the organic network.
There was a time when government was private as well. It was called monarchy and eventually
the kings had to understand they served a function to society, not just be served by it. We
are at the "Let them eat cake." moment with the financial system. The problems and conceptual
flaws go much deeper than how money functions. If we want to cure the surface social issues,
we will need to get into those issues. If you want to turn off a stove, you don't just put
your hand on it, you turn off what powers it.
To psychohistoriian (#10) Thank you for the analysis of Michael Hudson. I have studied his
work and came to the same
conclusion. He seems to walk around the core issue, which happens a disappointing number of
times. Viz. the now
17 year old "wah on Terra" Core issue: what is the real truth about nine-eleven - and how the
hell does it relate to Iraq?
Core issue: The private server emails of Hillary Clinton and her cabal break numerous laws.
No one has EVER disputed the
veracity of the emails; the pay to play; the subverting of Saunders, etc etc. Instead they
scapegoat Julian Assange.
It's shocking - and I'm amazing that I still have the capacity to be shocked.
Pax.
""As economies polarize between debtors and creditors, planning is shifting out of public
hands into those of bankers. The easiest way for them to keep this power is to block a true
central bank or strong public sector from interfering with their monopoly of credit creation.
The counter is for central banks and governments to act as they were intended to, by
providing a public option for credit creation""
Michael Hudson is actually a pretty strong proponent of public finance.
He is more in the 'positive money' camp than most MMTers but that mostly reflects his
disgust at the abuses of private credit creation.
@juliana - Please read the review of Hudson's book I linked.
The issue of periodic debt forgiveness has a much longer history in the middle eastern
society and Jesus words can only be understand within that historic context.
The view of Jesus as a Jewish revolutionary is not new at all. Reza Aslan wrote a whole
book about it: Zealot: The Life
and Times of Jesus of Nazareth as did many others. In the end the local aristocracy would
no longer condone that he was firing up the plebs with his commie talk against the money
changer and they told the imperial Roman overlords to off him ... or else.
The Christian religions defused the revolutionary aspect when they changed the target of
his teaching from real life issues towards a more spiritual perspective. The real meaning of
"forgive our debt" was turned from a real money thing into a the forgiveness of sins by some
heavily figure. (The Churches/priests also made billions from selling of indulgences due to
this transferred teaching.)
Ah, yes. Goldman Sachs is
famous for their "good work and integrity".
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has said about $4.5 billion was misappropriated from 1MDB,
including some money that Goldman Sachs helped raise, by high-level officials of the fund and
their associates from 2009 through 2014.
US prosecutors filed criminal charges against 2 former Goldman Sachs bankers earlier this
month. One of them, Tim Leissner, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to launder money and
conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
I'm sure it was just a "few bad apples", like Goldman Sachs's Ex-CEO
Lloyd Blankfein , who was personally involved in the transaction.
You might remember Lloyd from his doing "God's
Work" .
"... By Richard Murphy, a chartered accountant and a political economist. He has been described by the Guardian newspaper as an "anti-poverty campaigner and tax expert". He is Professor of Practice in International Political Economy at City University, London and Director of Tax Research UK. He is a non-executive director of Cambridge Econometrics . He is a member of the Progressive Economy Forum. Originally published at Tax Research UK ..."
"... 'a research paper by Hendrik Bessembinder published in the September edition of the Journal of Financial Economics posed the question "Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?" with some rather worrying conclusions for most equity investors. ..."
"... the view that stock markets themselves create value ..."
"... the view that stock markets themselves create value ..."
"... One aspect not touched upon is stocks are loans that never get repaid. If I pay $100 of a share and the company thrives. I get paid dividends in perpetuity. Plus, If I buy that share from someone who already had bought it (a trade) I am being paid when I actually provided none of the original loan (like a bank buying the "paper" from another bank). Someone calculated that the dividends paid by Apple have paid off the amount originally tendered by several hundred percent, which would make them the worst bank loans in all of creation. ..."
As many readers will know, I am not the greatest fan of stock markets. I consider most
activity on such markets to be exploitative because of the asymmetry of the information
available to investors. Much of it, from the pay directors take to the actions of most market
managers, I consider to be rent seeking. The idea that equities provide strong returns is
pretty much an urban myth, in my opinion, based on selective reading of data in those periods
between market crashes.
There is quite a lot of evidence to support my view in an article by long-term and highly
opinionated equity investor Terry Smith in the
FT this morning . As he notes he did this based on 'a research paper by Hendrik
Bessembinder published in the September edition of the Journal of Financial Economics posed the
question "Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?" with some rather worrying conclusions for most
equity investors. ' I should make clear that the research is US based. I have no reason to
think that performance in the UK is any different.
The main conclusions is that the majority of shares do not perform nearly as well as
government bonds. It is an exceptional few that make it look as though shares outperform
gilts.
Since 1977 the median new shares issued on the stock exchange has delivered a negative rate
of return, even with dividends reinvested.
On average, a quoted security has a life expectancy of just 7.5 years over the 90 year
period studied. No wonder short-termism is rife.
And as he notes:
Just five companies out of the universe of 25,967 in the study account for 10 per cent of
the total wealth creation over the 90 years, and just over 4 per cent of the companies
account for all of the wealth created.
So, what is to be learned?
First, the stock exchange is not a business funding mechanism: it is a business exit
strategy for most companies.
Second, most people are fools to take part in this game.
Third, if you insist on taking part only invest in the best stocks.
Fourth, since you have no way of knowing which ones they are, invest in a market
tracker.
Or fifth, buy gilts.
But whatever you don't believe the story that the market deliver higher rates of return than
government bonds: 96% of it does not.
When 43 pushed the privatization of Social Security through more 401k and similar
approaches my immediate thought was that he was rationalizing the transfer of wealth and
increased fees to Wall Street. Someday there will be a post-mortem about Neo-Liberalism and
that episode merits at least a footnote. To escape the memory hole.
Don't forget that Clinton had reached a deal with Gingerich to privatize up to half of the
Social Security Trust Fund in the stock market, which was only derailed by the Lewinski
scandal. Clinton was scheduled to unveil this at the State of the Union address the week
after the Lewinski story started to break, and pulled back because he was advised that if he
were impeached he'd need the Democrats in the Senate to avoid conviction. Google "Robert
Kuttner" "Clinton" and "Social Security" to get the details. There's also a book called "The
Pact" by Steven Gillon that documents the back channel negotiations, which were conducted by
Erskine Bowles, Clinton's last Chief of Staff.
It would have been the ultimate Neo-Liberal betrayal of the party of FDR, but we were
saved by a blue dress. Amazing story, not nearly as well known as it should be. We might have
been spared the Hillary Clinton phenomenon.
I don't want my Social Security benefits to be any kind of loan that has to be repaid.
That just gives the government another way to cut my benefits at some point.
I don't want Wall Street to get one penny of the contributions I have made to Social
Security for the past 50 years. They don't deserve it!
Your proposal is no more than a neoliberal justification for subjecting the Social
Security system to the depredations of the "Market", allowing the rentiers to get their cut
off the top.
Remember that taxes don't really pay for government expenses in a fiat system; don't
forget MMT.
Accounts are not real wealth any more than the map is the territory (CF Korzibsky and
general semantics). The stock market, as well as the bond market, are accounting gizmos, and
accounting is not actual wealth creation, and neither does owning stocks or binds produce
anything real.
Anyone investing in bonds in the low interest rate environment that has prevailed these
past ten years would disagree, I think.
I call rubbish on this article. Not my experience. My investing strategy is to follow the
oligarchs. Invest in stocks that make money by destroying the planet. Take profits when
things look toppy. Reinvest dividends.
Buy bonds at your own peril. Maybe when rates are in the 6% plus range but we're a long
way from that.
The main conclusions is that the majority of shares do not perform nearly as well as
government bonds. It is an exceptional few that make it look as though shares outperform
gilts.
Since 1977 the median new shares issued on the stock exchange has delivered a negative
rate of return, even with dividends reinvested.
On average, a quoted security has a life expectancy of just 7.5 years over the 90 year
period studied. No wonder short-termism is rife.
Have it your way – be poor. I'd rather have money than snark.
I have practical experience and have done better in equities.
The time scale of the article is 40 years – in our current economy 40 years ago is
ancient history. And they focus only on new issues, which represent a fraction of total
market cap. And I doubt many financial advisors would agree with me as I a) don't employ any
of them; and b) find them to be a repository of groupthink and always to miss inflection
points.
I dismiss anyone advising bonds in the current interest rate environment. Unless you want
to end up with less money than you started out with.
while it's great that you are succeeding in the market, remember that we have had 10 years
of qe and stock buybacks. I hear student loan bonds are very lucrative if you've got enough
dough to make a position
On average, a quoted security has a life expectancy of just 7.5 years over the 90 year
period studied. No wonder short-termism is rife.
This does not mean the average company goes bankrupt in 7.5 years. Acquisitions also
remove quoted securities. I don't see the link between how long a security is traded and
whether or not the underlying assets are managed for long or short term.
The dot com bubble sure had it's share of here today gone tomorrow stocks but, I'm also
wondering if they took into account many of the mergers and aquisitions that occurred during
the lead up to the bubble's popping.
The issue here is that companies only get money from e events:
1. During the initial IPO
2. If they issue new shares afterwards, which dilutes existing owners
Other than that, you are not, when you buy a share, sending money to the bank account of
the firm that you are investing in. What are you doing? Sending money to the person who you
bought the share from. It is pretty much speculation. Capitalists hate to admit this
idea.
Also, companies that buy back shares or pay dividends are taking money of their cash flows
and giving money to the shareholders.
In this regard, capitalism is not a good way to allocate capital. It can be used for
various types of manipulation, an example being a share buyback right before executives cash
in their stock options.
Years ago I read in Marjorie Kelly's The Divine Right of Capital
that 97% of all stock trades never contribute one direct penny to the Company who's shares
are traded. It's purely a speculative game.
It was the book that first woke me up 15 years ago to the way our financial system really
works. Needless to say, this site has become my ongoing educational resource.
Stock prices are a zero sum game. Every extra dollar the seller of a stock gets is an
extra dollar that the purchaser has paid to secure a share of future profits.
IMO stock markets in and of themselves both create and destroy "value" in much the same
way that a casino does, including largely hidden social costs. While there is little in the
way of public data to support either a pro or con view and setting aside issues of
manipulation of market prices, the view that stock markets themselves create value by
enabling price discovery is integral to neoliberalism. I agree with the view that the related
long-term "financialization" of the economy contributes to recurring speculative asset price
bubbles and leads to long-term economic stagnation while enriching a few.
"price discovery is integral to neoliberalism"
I would have thought it's the exact opposite ?
(Perhaps your "indeed" was ironic ?)
It's the inequality of information (ie price discovery) that makes the stock market so
profitable for the "right" people.
The Fed's years of QE is another factor that has made price discovery very difficult.
I believe that the concept of price 'discovery' is already an important element of
neoliberal framing, and that Chauncey Gardiner has shared a profound insight. Discovery
implies that there is a natural price, somehow prior to and independent of human/political
intervention. The stock market is a way to embody the collective of individual 'rational
actors', and give this collective transcendent power over individuals, corporations and
nations. It is perhaps more clear when one looks at bond markets and the way they are used to
'discipline' nations whose fiscal policies diverge from the neoliberal consensus. The fact
that the hand holding the whip is invisible is a feature, not a bug. The whipped feel the
lash, les autres hear the crack and see the blood, but there is no recourse
imaginable -- because Markets.
Your point about information inequality is good, but I think that would be viewed in
neoliberal doctrine as a minor flaw in the market, even if, for the main actors, it is the
raison d'etre .
Yup, what the author describes as a flaw -- "asymmetry of the information available to
investors", isn't a bug; it's a feature. But the real elephant soiling the room is who has
access to all that free debt printed by the unaccountable private cartel we refer to as the
Federal Reserve. Could you benefit from a zero-interest deferred-payment mortgage?
Even better "our" millionaire legislators are exempt from insider-trading laws and they in
turn have immunized their investors. Clearly the most lucrative investment by far is
political bribery. The new Wall Street Socialists have redefined capitalism and democracy as
Orwellian doublespeak.
I agree -- I think this post plays on its words. The stock market price for a stock
indicates what speculators are willing to pay and sellers are willing to accept for the
stock. These need have very little to do with the 'value' of the stock other than its 'value'
in the stock market. That's seldom been truer than in the current stock 'market'. I'm not a
very trusting sort so I don't believe more than half the numbers in corporate reports. Many
stocks stocks like Apple or Amazon tend to trade on 'value' instead of anything like what
used to be called value. At a time when there seems to be no limit on the amount of money
finding its way into the hands of the wealthy I'm not sure the selling of stock has anything
to do with raising money for investments. Many firms can coin their own money through their
many monopolies and monopsonies, and 'retained earnings' -- a category I believe often labels
earnings squeezed from the small sellers, suppliers, and labor thrall to the large firms. To
me, asserting "Stock markets do not create value" is shorthand for a much deeper critique of
our financialized stock markets.
Westinghouse in the days of George Westinghouse, General Electric in the days of Thomas
Edison, Xerox in the days shortly after Chester Carlson all created value. I like to believe
that at least in some periods of the stock market their stocks represented and did not create
but "shared" the value these firms invented and developed. I also like to believe at least
some of the new issues these and other firms sold did indeed once help fund real investments
in productive capital. But all that has become but romantic memory.
I believe the Corporate Management is busily engaged in cashing-out what real value
remains within the firms they control and will continue doing so until all that's left is a
hollow shell servicing the bonds and notes the firm created as part of their liquidation
process. The stock market is where speculators can bet against each other on the ebb and flow
of prices moving toward a great twilight of our stock markets and our gutted economy.
Well, there's entertainment value, just like casinos and horse racing, but that isn't what
they're paid for – unlike casinos or race tracks.
An Indiana paper (Indy Star? used to print the stock market numbers facing the horse race
results. My father was not amused when I pointed that out, since investing in stocks was part
of his job. I thought it was hilarious.
Realistically, financial "markets" are an overhead cost, part of your management system
for the economy. Not saying whether it's MIS- management.
They used to say you can make money if you are right 51% of the time. Such a narrow edge
– because the reverse is also true. This is a good argument for not wasting time and
money on the cherished institution of the market. Nancy Pelosi was blabbering on about all
our sacred institutions (cows) trying to cover her fauxpaux when she tried to defuse the
demand for single payer with her stumbling, tooth sucking comment that "this is a capitalist
country" and therefore we simply canot have anything so cost effective as single payer. I'm
convinced she doesn't know her capitalism from a hot rock. So now, armed with this simple
demonstration of how wasteful the whole idea of a stock market is, I'm thinking the Market is
a very questionable institution. Much better to be highly selective and deliberate about
stocks and stock companies. Not just in the share-buying but in the whole company concept. If
returns on government bonds are the best choice then why would anyone get upset about "the
debt". It's the best investment. And I am left to assume this is true because that money is
spent on valuable things in the first place. I'm also thinking how to do an end-run around
Nancy's new Institution-patriotism with a movement to provide everyone with a medical credit
card. Why not? Everything else, including Nancy's paycheck and percs, are on credit. What a
velvet revolution, no?
I went to Richard Murphy's websites and I'm not sure his new book "The Joy of Tax" will be
a big winner here in the US. He may need to give it a new title.
Your post supports the paper's conclusion. In the USA, there are about 4,000 companies
listed on exchanges and another 15,000 that trade OTC. Members of the S&P 500 are in fact
the "exceptional few."
I think that stock markets are reflective of value, they don't in themselves create value.
Certainly there is speculation and cheating, but in general, the value of a stock should
increase as the value of the underlying business increases. Better to say that the price
reflects the expected business in the future.
We've done fantastically well investing in stocks and mutual funds over the last 30 years.
Not every fund went up. Not every stock went up. But the total gains far outpaced the
losses.
Companies take money from the market by going public and by issuing new shares. They also
hold some shares from some issues that are used to incentivize employees.
I think the original author sort of tilted the table by talking treating all securities
the same. Likely the newcomers to the market are much smaller and have more risk of
failure.
I'm also puzzled how they square this claim agains the historical value of something like
he Russell 2000 index.
"Since 1977 the median new shares issued on the stock exchange has delivered a negative
rate of return, even with dividends reinvested." If this were true I'd expect to see a lot
more red in the historical returns. Maybe the word "median" is doing some heavy lifting?
This data would seem to indicate that corporations have consistently earned money and
these profits should be reflected in stock prices. (I don't know if these are in constant
dollars).
Hopefully someone can correct me here, if necessary, but hasn't the stock market risen in
a dollar amount roughly equivalent to the amount of QE pumped into the economy ?
No correction from me. The stock-casino representing "free-market capitalism" has risen in
lockstep with the Central Cartel's QE. The evidence, if circumstantial, is overwhelming, with
countless charts showing an almost exact correlation. Pretty hard to argue against
causation.
The 1980s financial innovation of sheer unadulterated genius that enabled the cartel to
buy the market -- legalizing stock buybacks -- a syringe for mainlining monetary heroin
straight into market veins. This is the new efficient-markets theory called "hindsight price
discovery". You will discover the true price and value after insiders dump their pumped
holdings
The only "correction" coming is in the market casino.
You forget that equities are a form of money which C-corps can create at will and don't
necessarily have fundamentals underpinning them e.g. Jbonds sold for stock by backs or abuse
of risk tools to lower credit weighing and deals between the sell and buy side marry go
round.
Don't know what to make out of the comment about communists e.g. old school classical
capitalists likened the financial traders to rats in the back alleys or bars they once traded
in. Not to mention the propensity for the financial traders to blow themselves and everyone
up with them like clock work. It has only been during the neoliberal period that the FIRE
sector gained a veneer of respectability through broad spectrum PR.
Something of a reference point to the Australian experience.
If the general managers of the 12 banks that burst in 1891 and 1893 had kept paid clowns
to make fun of the valuations of city and suburban land, made by the old-established
auctioneers and valuators of Melbourne in the land boom days, their banks would never have
closed their doors.
Every bank should keep a laughing department where absurd valuations and ridiculous
securities could be laughed off the premises. The easiest marks as borrowers were the
building societies and the land and estate agents, and they had a right royal time asking for
and getting advances. In those halcyon days nobody was ever refused a loan by a bank manager.
So the banks opened agencies in Scotland, Ireland and England, and borrowed millions on
deposit receipts for 18 months and lent them out in Victoria for 30 years, and a great deal
of the money, for eternity.
It wasn't a mad or pessimistic or despondent thing to do. It was one calling for laughter,
for merriment, for jocosity.
Why should the good-humoured borrower explain to the dismal bank manager, irritated and
worried by Head Office letters and circulars censuring him for not lending money fast enough,
that though he had paid £1 a foot for land at Coburg or Glen Iris or Mentone that it
was not in his own opinion worth the £10 a foot of his own valuation.
Nobody dared to laugh at these insane transactions, nobody was brave enough to say,
" All this business is frenzied, delusive and pure buffoonery. There must be a smash.
" And there was. Prices of houses and lands jumped higher and higher, day by day, nay, hour
by hour, and more and more people were drawn into the maelstrom, into a true Walpurgis ride
to sudden wealth.
Rateable property in cities, towns and boroughs went up by leaps and bounds from £53
to £86 million sterling in 5 years, while the rateable property of shire councils
jumped from £71 to £108 million in the 5 years 1886-1890. It was all so dashed
funny, because there was no solid foundation for all this paper wealth.
Production did not increase part passu, nor overseas trade, nor exports, nor shipping,
except that imports increased literally horribly. During 1886 and 1890 in Victoria, railways
costing Z8 ,000,000 and 486 new churches and chapels were built. To me it was all so
ridiculous and amusing, and the best of the joke was that none of the leaders of the people
in Press, Parliament, Church, or on the platform, ever uttered a single word of warning about
the coming debacle, The terrible catastrophe so close at hand which brought ruin to tens of
thousands of decent people and nearly smashed Victoria.
Bank assets rose from £41m in 86 to £63m in 91.
Deposits grew from £31m in 86 to £40m in 91.
After that they fell away and did not reach £40m until 1907, or 28 years later. I am
writing of what I know because I went through that critical period on the inside in a finance
company and in a property company as an executive officer, and when the panic stopped I was a
member of the Stock Exchange.
"the view that stock markets themselves create value"
Value as determined by who? In terms of which inputs to achieve what outputs? As an
example, a company experiencing challenges (or as I call them – problems) may need to
hire more people to achieve long-term growth. However, if they do that Wall Street will
hammer their stocks which will go down. If they cut their workforce instead, Wall Street will
reward them by valuing their stocks even higher though the company has effectively sabotaged
their future growth plans. Thus Wall Street is not doing price discovery so much as
constructing their own outputs to be achieved by individual companies along some ideological
goal. Perhaps they are trying to create the 'perfect market' by warping reality which
is a neoliberal trait.
One aspect not touched upon is stocks are loans that never get repaid. If I pay $100
of a share and the company thrives. I get paid dividends in perpetuity. Plus, If I buy that
share from someone who already had bought it (a trade) I am being paid when I actually
provided none of the original loan (like a bank buying the "paper" from another bank).
Someone calculated that the dividends paid by Apple have paid off the amount originally
tendered by several hundred percent, which would make them the worst bank loans in all of
creation.
Would not simple loans make more sense? (Yes I am aware of the abuses of the Japanese uses
of banks, but they were abuses of a system, not the system itself that resulted in their
decline.)
Here are a few quotes from President Trump's constant cheerleading of the American economy
in the last several months leading up to next week's midterms.
"In many ways, this is the greatest economy in the HISTORY of America"
-- President Trump tweeted, June 04
"We have the strongest economy in the history of our nation."
-- Trump told reporters, June 15
"We have the greatest economy in the history of our country."
-- Trump said in an interview with Fox News, July 16
"We're having the best economy we've ever had in the history of our country."
-- Trump, said in a speech in Illinois, July 26
"This is the greatest economy that we've had in our history, the best."
-- Trump said at rally in Charleston, W.Va., Aug. 21
"You know, we have the best economy we've ever had, in the history of our country."
-- Trump said in an interview on "Fox and Friends," Aug. 23
"It's said now that our economy is the strongest it's ever been in the history of our
country, and you just have to take a look at the numbers."
-- Trump said on a White House video log, Aug. 24
"We have the best economy the country's ever had and it's getting better."
-- Trump told the Daily Caller, Sept. 03
Democrats are anticipating a blue wave during the November midterm elections, but according
to President Trump, the "strong" US economy could propel Republicans to victory next week.
"History says that whoever's president always seems to lose the midterm," Trump said on an
Oct. 16 interview with FOX Business' Trish Regan.
"No one had the economy that we do. We have the greatest economy that we've ever had."
President Trump's cheerleading sounds great and certainly helps animal spirits, but a new
study warns that more than 25% of American renters are not confident they could cover a $400
emergency. About 18% of homeowners report record low emergency savings. And if you thought that
was bad, more than 30% of renters feel insecure about eating, as do 19% of homeowners, the
Urban Institute study , a
nonpartisan think tank in Washington, reported.
The main takeaway from the report: renters are struggling more than homeowners in the
"greatest economy ever."
"Rental costs are rising much faster than renters' salaries. Between 1960 and 2016, the
median income for a renter grew by just 5%. During the same period, the median rent ballooned
by more than 60%, according to The Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University.
(Both figures account for inflation.)
To be sure, buying a house has also become harder for many Americans -- to do so now costs
four times the median household income. The homeownership rate fell to 63% in 2016 –
the lowest rate in half a century," said
CNBC .
Corianne Scally, a senior research analyst at the Urban Institute and a co-author of the
study, told CNBC that "renters seem to be worse off." Scally said the report was derived from
its 2017 well-being and basic needs survey, which received about 7,500 responses from people
aged 18 to 64.
2017 living arrangements for Americans
About half of renters in the survey reported financial hardships since President Trump took
office, compared with 33% of homeowners. More than 25% of renters in the survey were not
confident they could cover a $400 emergency. Around 18% of homeowners reported low emergency
savings. Almost 20% of renters saw large and unexpected declines in pay in the past year,
compared with 14% of homeowners.
Reported problems paying family medical bills
More than 12% of renters said they could barely pay rent, compared with 9% of homeowners who
warned their mortgage payments were getting too expensive. 15% of renters said they were on the
brink of not being able to afford utilities during the last 12 months, while 11% of homeowners
said the same.
Households unable to consistenly access or afford food
Scally made it clear to CNBC that renters are much worse off than ever before, but it is
also clear that some homeowners are feeling the pain as well.
"It seems that some of them are having to make trade-offs in just meeting their basic
needs," she said.
Maybe the "greatest economy ever," is not so great?
If so, then why is the Trump administration creating smoke and mirrors about the
economy?
The simple answer: it is all about winning the midterms by any means necessary. As for after
the midterms, then into 2019, a global slowdown lingers, that is the reason why the stock
market had one of its worst months since the 2008 crash. Trouble is ahead.
"... Every academic critique of neoliberalism is an unacknowledged memoir. We academics occupy a crucial node in the neoliberal system. Our institutions are foundational to neoliberalism's claim to be a meritocracy, insofar as we are tasked with discerning and certifying the merit that leads to the most powerful and desirable jobs. Yet at the same time, colleges and universities have suffered the fate of all public goods under the neoliberal order. We must therefore "do more with less," cutting costs while meeting ever-greater demands. The academic workforce faces increasing precarity and shrinking wages even as it is called on to teach and assess more students than ever before in human history -- and to demonstrate that we are doing so better than ever, via newly devised regimes of outcome-based assessment. In short, we academics live out the contradictions of neoliberalism every day. ..."
"... Whereas classical liberalism insisted that capitalism had to be allowed free rein within its sphere, under neoliberalism capitalism no longer has a set sphere. We are always "on the clock," always accruing (or squandering) various forms of financial and social capital. ..."
Every academic critique of neoliberalism is an unacknowledged memoir. We academics
occupy a crucial node in the neoliberal system. Our institutions are foundational to
neoliberalism's claim to be a meritocracy, insofar as we are tasked with discerning and
certifying the merit that leads to the most powerful and desirable jobs. Yet at the same time,
colleges and universities have suffered the fate of all public goods under the neoliberal
order. We must therefore "do more with less," cutting costs while meeting ever-greater demands.
The academic workforce faces increasing precarity and shrinking wages even as it is called on
to teach and assess more students than ever before in human history -- and to demonstrate that
we are doing so better than ever, via newly devised regimes of outcome-based assessment. In
short, we academics live out the contradictions of neoliberalism every day.
... ... ...
On a more personal level it reflects my upbringing in the suburbs of Flint, Michigan, a city
that has been utterly devastated by the transition to neoliberalism. As I lived through the
slow-motion disaster of the gradual withdrawal of the auto industry, I often heard Henry Ford s
dictum that a company could make more money if the workers were paid enough to be customers as
well, a principle that the major US automakers were inexplicably abandoning. Hence I find it
[Fordism -- NNB] to be an elegant way of capturing the postwar model's promise of creating
broadly shared prosperity by retooling capitalism to produce a consumer society characterized
by a growing middle class -- and of emphasizing the fact that that promise was ultimately
broken.
By the mid-1970s, the postwar Fordist order had begun to breakdown to varying degrees in the
major Western countries. While many powerful groups advocated a response to the crisis that
would strengthen the welfare state, the agenda that wound up carrying the day was
neoliberalism, which was most forcefully implemented in the United Kingdom by Margaret Thatcher
and in the United States by Ronald Reagan. And although this transformation was begun by the
conservative part)', in both countries the left-of-centcr or (in American usage) "liberal"party
wound up embracing neoliberal tenets under Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, ostensibly for the
purpose of directing them toward progressive ends.
With the context of current debates within the US Democratic Party, this means that Clinton
acolytes are correct to claim that "neoliberalism" just is liberalism but only to the extent
that, in the contemporary United States, the term liberalism is little more than a word for
whatever the policy agenda of the Democratic Party happens to be at any given time. Though
politicians of all stripes at times used libertarian rhetoric to sell their policies, the most
clear-eyed advocates of neoliberalism realized that there could be no simple question of a
"return" to the laissez-faire model.
Rather than simply getting the state "out of the way," they both deployed and transformed
state power, including the institutions of the welfare state, to reshape society in accordance
with market models. In some cases creating markets where none had previously existed, as in the
privatization of education and other public services. In others it took the form of a more
general spread of a competitive market ethos into ever more areas of life -- so that we are
encouraged to think of our reputation as a "brand," for instance, or our social contacts as
fodder for "networking." Whereas classical liberalism insisted that capitalism had to be
allowed free rein within its sphere, under neoliberalism capitalism no longer has a set sphere.
We are always "on the clock," always accruing (or squandering) various forms of financial and
social capital.
"... By James Heckman, Henry Schultz Distinguished Service Professor of Economics, University of Chicago; Founding Director, Center for the Economics of Human Development and Sidharth Moktan, Predoctoral Fellow, Center for the Economics of Human Development, University of Chicago. Originally published at VoxEU ..."
"... Anecdotal evidence suggests that the 'Top Five' economics journals have a strong influence on tenure and promotion decisions, but actual evidence on their influence is sparse. This column uses data on employment and publication histories for tenure-track faculty hired by the top US economics departments between 1996 and 2010 to show that the impact of the Top Five on tenure decisions dwarfs that of non-Top Five journals. A survey of US economics department faculties confirms the Top Five's outsized influence. ..."
"... American Economic Review ..."
"... Journal of Political Economy ..."
"... Quarterly Journal of Economics ..."
"... Review of Economic Studies ..."
"... We find that the Top Five has a large impact on tenure decisions within the top 35 US departments of economics, dwarfing the impact of publications in non-Top Five journals. A survey of current tenure-track faculty hired by the top 50 US economics departments confirms the Top Five's outsize influence. ..."
Yves
here. In case you hadn't noticed it, the economics discipline has doctrinal norms. Academics
who stray too far from it find themselves welcome only at the small number of colleges and
universities, such as the University of Missouri – Kansas City and the University of
Massachusetts – Amherst, that embrace heterodox views.
The top five economics journals play a large role in enforcing the orthodoxy. Jamie
Galbraith has described how he'd submit suitably mathed-up papers to one of the heavyweights,
get an initial positive response, but when they understood where he was going, they'd alway
reject the paper. The reviewers would claim that the mathematics were flawed, when that was not
the case. But being published by the top five is essential to advancing in prestigious
economics faculties, such as Harvard, Chicago, Princeton, and MIT.
It should be noted that no real science has a rigid hierarchy of journals like this. The
article documents disfunction among the editors at these journals, such as incest and
clientelism.
By James Heckman, Henry Schultz Distinguished Service Professor of Economics, University
of Chicago; Founding Director, Center for the Economics of Human Development and Sidharth
Moktan, Predoctoral Fellow, Center for the Economics of Human Development, University of
Chicago. Originally published at VoxEU
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the 'Top Five' economics journals have a strong
influence on tenure and promotion decisions, but actual evidence on their influence is sparse.
This column uses data on employment and publication histories for tenure-track faculty hired by
the top US economics departments between 1996 and 2010 to show that the impact of the Top Five
on tenure decisions dwarfs that of non-Top Five journals. A survey of US economics department
faculties confirms the Top Five's outsized influence.
Anyone who talks with young economists entering academia about their career prospects and
those of their peers cannot fail to note the importance they place on publication in the
so-called Top Five journals in economics: the American Economic Review ,
Econometrica ,the Journal of Political Economy ,the Quarterly Journal of
Economics , and the Review of Economic Studies .The discipline's preoccupation
with the Top Five is reflected in the large number of scholarly papers that study aspects of
the these journals, many of which acknowledge the Top Five's de facto role as arbiter in tenure
and promotion decisions (e.g. Ellison 2002, Frey 2009, Card and DellaVigna 2013, Anauti et al.
2015, Hamermesh 2013, 2018, Colussi 2018).
While anecdotal evidence suggests that the Top Five has a strong influence on tenure and
promotion decisions, actual evidence on such influence is sparse. Our paper (Heckman and Moktan
2018) fills this gap in the literature. We find that the Top Five has a large impact on
tenure decisions within the top 35 US departments of economics, dwarfing the impact of
publications in non-Top Five journals. A survey of current tenure-track faculty hired by the
top 50 US economics departments confirms the Top Five's outsize influence.
Our empirical and survey-based findings of the Top Five's influence beg the question: is the
Top Five an adequate filter of quality? Extending the analysis of Hamermesh (2018), we show
that appearance of an article in the Top Five is a poor predictor of quality as measured by
citations. Substantial variation in the citations accrued by papers published in the Top Five
and overlap in article quality across journals outside the Top Five make aggregate measures of
journal quality such as the Top Five label and Impact Factors poor measures of individual
article quality. This is a view expressed by many economists and non-economists alike.
1
There are many consequences of the discipline's reliance on the Top Five. It subverts the
essential process of assessing and rewarding original research. Using the Top Five to screen
the next generation of economists incentivises professional incest and creates clientele
effects whereby career-oriented authors appeal to the tastes of editors and biases of journals.
It diverts their attention away from basic research toward strategising about formats, lines of
research, and favoured topics of journal editors, many with long tenures. It raises the entry
costs for new ideas and persons outside the orbits of the journals and their editors. An
over-emphasis on Top Five publications perversely incentivises scholars to pursue follow-up and
replication work at the expense of creative pioneering research, since follow-up work is easier
to judge, is more likely to result in clean publishable results, and is hence more likely to be
published. 2 This behaviour is consistent with basic common sense: you get what you
incentivise.
In light of the many adverse and potentially severe consequences associated with current
practices, we believe that it is unwise for the discipline to continue using publication in the
Top Five as a measure of research achievement and as a predictor of future scholarly potential.
The call to abandon the use of measures of journal influence in career advancement decisions
has already gained momentum in the sciences. As of the time of the writing of this column, 667
organisations and 13,019 individuals have signed the San Francisco Declaration of Research
Assessment, a declaration denouncing the use of journal metrics in hiring, career advancement,
and funding decisions within the sciences. 3 Economists should take heed of these
actions. We provide suggestions for change in the concluding portion of this column.
Documenting the Power of the Top Five
We find strong evidence of the influence of the Top Five. Without doubt, publication in the
Top Five is a powerful determinant of tenure and promotion in academic economics. We analyse
longitudinal data on employment and publication histories for tenure-track faculty hired by the
top 35 US economics department between 1996 and 2010. We find that Top Five publications
greatly increase the probability of receiving tenure during the first spell of tenure-track
employment (see Figure 1). This is true if we limit samples to the first seven years of
employment. Estimates from duration analyses of time to tenure show that publishingthree Top
Five articles is associated with a 370% increase in the rate of receiving tenure, compared to
candidates with similar levels of publication in non-Top Five journals. The estimated effects
of publication in non-Top Five journals pale in comparison.
Figure 1 Predicted probabilities for receipt of tenure in the first spell of tenure-track
employment
Notes : The figures plot the predicted probabilities associated with
different levels of publications by authors in different journal categories, where the
predictions are obtained from a logit model. White diamonds on the bars indicate that the
prediction is significantly different than zero at the 5% level.
A survey of current assistant and associate professors hired by the top 50 US economics
departments corroborates these findings. On average, junior faculty rank Top Five publications
as being the single most influential determinant of tenure and promotion outcomes (see Figure
2). 4
Figure 2 Ranking of performance areas based on their perceived influence on tenure and
promotion decisions
Notes : The figure summarises respondents' rankings of either performance
areas. Responses are summarised by type of career advancement: tenure receipt, promotion to
assistant professor, and promotion to associate professor. The bars present mean responses for
each performance area. Respondents were given the option to not rank any or all of the eight
performance areas. As a result, the number of respondents varies across the performance
areas.
Responses to our survey reveal a widespread belief among junior faculty that the effect of
the Top Five on career advancement operates independently of differences in article quality. To
separate quality effects from a Top Five placement effect, we ask respondents to report the
probability that their department awards tenure or promotion to an individual with Top Five
publications compared to an individual identical to the first individual in every way except
that he/she has published the same number and quality of articles in non-Top Five journals. If
the Top Five influence operates solely through differences in article impact and quality, the
expected reported probability would be 0.5. The results in Figure 3 show large and
statistically significant deviations from 0.5 in favour of Top Five publication. On average,
respondents from top 10 departments believe that the Top Five candidate would receive tenure
with a probability of 0.89. The mean probability increases slightly for lower-ranked
departments.
Figure 3 Probability that a candidate with Top Five publications receives tenure or
promotion instead of an identical candidate with non-Top Five publications, ceteris paribus
Notes : The figure summarises respondents' perceptions about the probability
that a candidate with Top Five publications is granted tenure or promotion by the respondent's
department instead of a candidate with non-Top Five publications, ceteris paribus. Responses
are summarised by type of career advancement: tenure receipt, promotion to assistant professor,
and promotion to associate professor. The bars present mean responses for each performance
area. White diamonds indicate that the mean response is significantly different than 50% at the
10% level.
The Top Five as a Filter of Quality
The current practice of relying on the Top Five has weak empirical support if judged by its
ability to produce impactful papers as measured by citation counts. Extending the citation
analysis of Hamermesh (2018), we find considerable heterogeneity in citations within journals
and overlap in citations across Top Five and non-Top Five journals (see Figure 4). Moreover,
the overlap increases considerably when one compares non-Top Five journals to the less-cited
Top Five journals. For instance, while the median Review of Economics and Statistics
article ranks in the 38thpercentile of the overall Top Five citation distribution, the same
article outranks the median-cited article in the combined Journal of Political Economy
and Review of Economic Studies distributions.
Figure 4 Distribution of residualalog citations for articles published between 2000 and 2010
(as at July 2018)
Source : Scopus.com (accessed July 2018) Note : a The table plots distributions of residual log citations obtained from a model
that estimates log(citations+1) as a function of third-degree polynomial for years elapsed
between the date of publication and 2018, the year citations were measured. This
residualisation adjusts log citations for exposure effects, thereby allowing for comparison of
citations received by papers from different publication cohorts. Definition of journal abbreviations : QJE–Quarterly Journal Of Economics,
JPE–Journal Of Political Economy, ECMA–Econometrica, AER–American Economic
Review, ReStud–Review Of Economic Studies, JEL–Journal Of Economic Literature,
JEP–Journal Of Economic Perspectives, ReStat–Review Of Economics And Statistics,
JEG–Journal Of Economic Growth, JOLE–Journal Of Labor Economics, JHR–Journal
Of Human Resources, EJ–Economic Journal, JHE–Journal Of Health Economics,
ICC–Industrial And Corporate Change, WBER–World Bank Economic Review,
RAND–Rand Journal Of Economics, JDE–Journal Of Development Economics,
JPub–Journal Of Public Economics, JOE–Journal Of Econometrics, HE–Health
Economics, ILR–Industrial And Labor Relations Review, JEEA–Journal Of The European
Economic Association, JME–Journal Of Monetary Economics, JRU–Journal Of Risk And
Uncertainty, JInE–Journal Of Industrial Economics, JOF–Journal Of Finance,
JFE–Journal Of Financial Economics, ReFin–Review Of Financial Studies,
JFQA–Journal Of Financial And Quantitative Analysis, and MathFin–Mathematical
Finance.
Restricting the citation analysis to the top of the citation distribution produces the same
conclusion. Among the top 1% most-cited articles in our citations database, 5 13.6%
were published by three non-Top Five journals. 6
Low Editorial Turnover and Incest
Figure 5 Density plot of the number of years served by editors between 1996 and 2016
Source : Brogaard et al. (2014) for data up to 2011. Data for subsequent
years collected from journal front pages.
Compounding the privately rational incentive to curry favour with editors is the phenomenon
of longevity of editorial terms, especially at house journals (see Figure 5). Low turnover in
editorial boards creates the possibility of clientele effects surrounding both journals and
their editors. We corroborate the literature that documents the inbred nature of economics
publishing (Laband and Piette 1994, Brogaard et al. 2014, Colussi 2018) by estimating incest
coefficients that quantify the degree of inbreeding in Top Five publications. We show that
network effects are empirically important – editors are likely to select the papers of
those they know. 7
Table 1 Incest coefficients: Publications in Top Five between 2000 and 2016, by author
affiliation listed during publication
Source : Elsevier, Scopus.com.
Notes : The table reports three columns for each Top Five journal. The left
most columns report the number of articles that were affiliated to each university. The middle
columns present the percentage of articles published in the journal that were affiliated to the
university out of all articles affiliated to the list top universities. The right most columns
present the percentage of articles published in the journal that were affiliated to the
university out of all articles published in the journal. An author is defined as being
affiliated with a university during a given year if he/she listed the university as an
affiliation in any publication that was made during that specific year. An article is defined
as being affiliated with a university during a specific year if at least one author was
affiliated to the university during the year.
Discussion
Reliance on the Top Five as a screening device raises serious concerns. Our findings should
spark a serious conversation in the economics profession about developing implementable
alternatives for judging the quality of research. Such solutions necessarily de-emphasise the
role of the Top Five in tenure and promotion decisions, and redistribute the signalling
function more broadly across a range of high-quality journals.
However, a proper solution to the tyranny will likely involve more than a simple
redefinition of the Top Five to include a handful of additional influential journals. A better
solution will need to address the flaw that is inherent in the practice of judging a scholar's
potential for innovative work based on a track record of publications in a handful of select
journals. The appropriate solution requires a significant shift from the current
publications-based system of deciding tenure to a system that emphasises departmental peer
review of a candidate's work. Such a system would give serious consideration to unpublished
working papers and to the quality and integrity of a scholar's work. By closely reading
published and unpublished papers rather than counting placements of publications, departments
would signal that they both acknowledge and adequately account for the greater risk associated
with scholars working at the frontiers of the discipline.
A more radical proposal would be to shift publication away from the current journal system
with its long delays in refereeing and publication and possibility for incest and favoritism,
towards an open source arXiv or PLOS ONE format. 8 Such formats facilitate the
dissemination rate of new ideas and provide online real-time peer review for them. Discussion
sessions would vet criticisms and provide both authors and their readers with different
perspectives within much faster time frames. Shorter, more focused papers would stimulate
dialogue and break editorial and journal monopolies. Ellison (2011 )notes that online
publication is already being practiced by prominent scholars. Why not broaden the practice
across the profession and encourage spirited dialogue and rapid dissemination of new ideas?
This evolution has begun with a recently launched economics version of arXiv .
Under any event, the profession should reduce incentives for crass careerism and promote
creative activity. Short tenure clocks and reliance on the Top Five to certify quality do just
the opposite. In the long run, the profession will benefit from application of more
creativity-sensitive screening of its next generation.
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage,
and those who manage what they do not understand. -- Archibald Putt
Neoliberal PHBs like talk about KJLOCs, error counts, tickets closed and other types of
numerical measurements designed so that they can be used by lower-level PHBs to report fake
results to higher level PHBs. These attempts to quantify 'the quality' and volume of work
performed by software developers and sysadmins completely miss the point. For software is can
lead to code bloat.
The number of tickets taken and resolved in a specified time period probably the most ignorant way to measure performance of
sysadmins. For sysadmin you can invent creative creating way of generating and resolving
tickets. And spend time accomplishing fake task, instead of thinking about real problem that
datacenter face. Using Primitive measurement strategies devalue the work being performed by Sysadmins and programmers. They focus
on the wrong things. They create the boundaries that are supposed to contain us in a manner that is comprehensible to the PHB who
knows nothing about real problems we face.
Notable quotes:
"... Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage, and those who manage what they do not understand. ..."
In an advanced research or development project, success or failure is largely determined
when the goals or objectives are set and before a manager is chosen. While a hard-working and
diligent manager can increase the chances of success, the outcome of the project is most
strongly affected by preexisting but unknown technological factors over which the project
manager has no control. The success or failure of the project should not, therefore, be used as
the sole measure or even the primary measure of the manager's competence.
Putt's Law Is promulgated
Without an adequate competence criterion for technical managers, there is no way to
determine when a person has reached his level of incompetence. Thus a clever and ambitious
individual may be promoted from one level of incompetence to another. He will ultimately
perform incompetently in the highest level of the hierarchy just as he did in numerous lower
levels. The lack of an adequate competence criterion combined with the frequent practice of
creative incompetence in technical hierarchies results in a competence inversion, with the most
competent people remaining near the bottom while persons of lesser talent rise to the top. It
also provides the basis for Putt's Law, which can be stated in an intuitive and nonmathematical
form as follows:
Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not
manage, and those who manage what they do not understand.
As in any other hierarchy, the majority of persons in technology neither understand nor
manage much of anything. This, however, does not create an exception to Putt's Law, because
such persons clearly do not dominate the hierarchy. While this was not previously stated as a
basic law, it is clear that the success of every technocrat depends on his ability to deal with
and benefit from the consequences of Putt's Law.
Social pressure to conform is natural in any organization. And universities are not exception. Various people positioned
differently on confiormism-independent_thinking spectrum, so we should not generalize that social pressure makes any
students a conformist, who is afraid to voice his/her opinion. Some small percentage of student can withstand significant social
pressure. But the fact that around 50% can't withstand significant social pressure sounds right.
As more and more college professors express their social and
political views in classrooms, students across the country are feeling increasingly afraid to
disagree according to a survey of 800 full-time undergraduate college students, reported by the
Wall Street Journal ' s James Freeman.
When students were asked if they've had "any professors or course instructors that have
used class time to express their own social or political beliefs that are completely
unrelated to the subject of the course," 52% of respondents said that this occurs "often,"
while 47% responded, "not often."
A majority -- 53% -- also reported that they often "felt intimidated" in sharing their
ideas, opinions or beliefs in class because they were different from those of the professors.
-
WSJ
What's more, 54% of students say they are intimidated expressing themselves when their views
conflict with those of their classmates.
The survey, conducted by McLaughlin & Associates on behalf of Yale's William F. Buckley,
Jr. Program (which counts Freeman among its directors), was undertaken between October 8th and
18th, and included students at both public and private four-year universities across the
country.
This is a problem, suggests Freeman - as unbiased teachers who formerly filled universities
have been replaced by activists who "unfortunately appear to be just as political and
overbearing as one would expect," and that " perhaps the actual parents who write checks can
someday find some way to encourage more responsible behavior. "
As for the students, there's at least a mixed message in the latest survey results. On the
downside, the fact that so many students are afraid of disagreeing with their peers does not
suggest a healthy intellectual atmosphere even outside the classroom. There's more
disappointing news in the answers to other survey questions. For example, 59% of respondents
agreed with this statement:
My college or university should forbid people from speaking on campus who have a history of
engaging in hate speech.
This column does not favor hatred, nor the subjective definition of "hate speech" by college
administrators seeking to regulate it. In perhaps the most disturbing finding in the poll
results, 33% of U.S. college students participating in the survey agreed with this
statement:
If someone is using hate speech or making racially charged comments, physical violence can be
justified to prevent this person from espousing their hateful views.
An optimist desperately searching for a silver lining would perhaps note that 60% of
respondents did not agree that physical violence is justified to silence people speaking what
someone has defined as "hate speech" or "racially charged" comments. But the fact that a third
of college students at least theoretically endorse violence as a response to offensive speech
underlines the threat to free expression on American campuses.
Perhaps more encouraging are the responses to this question:
Generally speaking, do you think the First Amendment, which deals with freedom of speech, is
an outdated amendment that can no longer be applied in today's society and should be changed
or an important amendment that still needs to be followed and respected in today's society?
A full 79% of respondents opted for respecting the First Amendment, while 17% backed a
rewrite.
On a more specific question, free speech isn't winning by the same landslide. When asked if
they would favor or oppose their schools having speech codes to regulate speech for students
and faculty, 54% of U.S. college kids opposed such codes while 38% were in favor.
The free exchange of ideas is in danger on American campuses. And given the unprofessional
behavior of American faculty suggested by this survey, education reformers should perhaps focus
on encouraging free-speech advocates within the student body while adopting a campus slogan
from an earlier era: Don't trust anyone over 30.
this tyranny applies not only to politics and weirdo social world view, it runs thru
everything. Group think is powerful and those not following get excluded, defunded of
resources and ridicule and other punishment.
The education-industrial complex is a massive spending and debt-fed bubble, that has
created a massive political organizing force and teflon monoculture. They are parasites
feeding off government and the debt of students
It's always been like this, at school as a 5 year old ....my little kid was sent to the
headmaster for objecting to making a key ring thing in craft as not one kid had a key. He
spoke a well reasoned argument and of course is at the Supreme Court now. But gained no
respect or nurturing from that school. I also copped it, made career decision to be a
scientist because of the stupidity of an english teacher not knowing same issues prevailed
there. Was thrown out of english honours course so did the exam on my own knowledge and got
first class honours in the state.
At University we all know you feed back what they want if you want to pass. Some want
intelligence and best true understanding others want their crippled stuff. This also applies
if you are a science, physiology researcher. Cutting edge work if not mainstream does not get
published, you have to be part of a recognised institution to be published so no independent
researcher,
There are set ideas and marketing there of eg antioxidants fallacies, need for estrogen,
and until recently How stupid was Lamarck because he espoused the passing down of response to
environment to subsequent generations...Darwin thought this too but idea was suppressed. Then
epigenetics got the new hot thing for grants. Fck them all.
My child and I discussed a version with the principal when he was doing the
bacceaulureate, as from 5 onwards teachers rejected correct answers and wanted their answers.
The excellent advice was to view it all like a driving exam, learn the road rules and give
them back.
students always know the tyranny of the teacher and evaluator. At 6 my kid was sat with
the slow learners and forced to give 30answers a day ' correct' . Ie lies and untruths.
Infinity as answer to how many corners has a cylinder was not only mad bad but
ridiculed.
It's impossible to actually debate someone who has NO FACTS on either side of the
argument....
it winds up like this....
"not even WRONG"
The phrase " not even wrong " describes an argument or explanation that purports to be
scientific but is based on invalid reasoning or speculative premises that can neither be
proven correct nor falsified .
Hence, it refers to statements that cannot be discussed in a rigorous, scientific sense . [1] For a
meaningful discussion on whether a certain statement is true or false, the statement must
satisfy the criterion called "falsifiability" -- the inherent possibility for the statement
to be tested and found false. In this sense, the phrase "not even wrong" is synonymous to
"nonfalsifiable". [1]
The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicistWolfgang Pauli , who was
known for his colorful objections to incorrect or careless thinking. [2][3]Rudolf Peierls documents an
instance in which "a friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected
was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not
even wrong' ." [4] This is also
often quoted as "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong", or in Pauli's native
German , " Das
ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!". Peierls remarks that quite a few
apocryphal stories of this
kind have been circulated and mentions that he listed only the ones personally vouched for by
him. He also quotes another example when Pauli replied to Lev Landau , "What you said was so confused
that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not. " [4]
Chemical engineering, engineering structural (optional), basic electrical engineering and
C++ programing and he can make any machine to automatically preform any chemical process out
of his garage. You could probably watch a butt ton of YouTube and a library card and also
learn those skills.
The homogenized culture of colleges today is very similar to what I imagine it was like in
the 1950's, but with a different set of "values" obviously. The 1950's led to the 1960's, and
a complete rejection by many young people of establishment mono-culture. Maybe the young
people eventually will figure out that what they see as SJW counter-culture is actually new
establishment culture, and they will rebel against it in a few years. Probably not,
though.
When I was in the army and got sentence to 2 years less a day in Military prison in
Edmonton, I paid $1.70 a day, which the military were so kind to ring up a tab for me, when I
got released from prison they handed me my bill and made me work it off before I got my
dishonorable discharge
These practices are "interesting". And people still wonder why there are so many deadly amok
runs at US companies? What do they expect when they replace old and experienced workers with
inexperienced millenials, who often lack basic knowledge about their job? Better performance?
This will run US tech companies into the ground. This sort of "American" HR management is
gaining ground here in Germany as well, its troubling. And on top they have to compete against
foreign tech immigrants from middle eastern and asian companies. Sure fire recipe for social
unrest and people voting for right-wing parties.
I too was a victim of IBM's underhanded trickery to get rid of people...39 years with IBM,
a top performer. I never got a letter telling me to move to Raleigh. All i got was a phone
call asking me if i wanted to take the 6 month exception to consider it. Yet, after taking the
6 month exception, I was told I could no longer move, the colocation was closed. Either I find
another job, not in Marketing support (not even Marketing) or leave the company. I received no
letter from Ginni, nothing. I was under the impression I could show up in Raleigh after the
exception period. Not so. It was never explained....After 3 months I will begin contracting
with IBM. Not because I like them, because I need the money...thanks for the article.
dropped in 2013 after 22 years. IBM stopped leading in the late 1980's, afterwards it
implemented "market driven quality" which meant listen for the latest trends, see what other
people were doing, and then buy the competition or drive them out of business. "Innovation that
matters": it's only interesting if an IBM manager can see a way to monetize it.
That's a low standard. It's OK, there are other places that are doing better. In fact, the
best of the old experienced people went to work there. Newsflash: quality doesn't change with
generations, you either create it or you don't.
Sounds like IBM is building its product portfolio to match its desired workforce. And of
course, on every round of layoffs, the clear criterion was people who were compliant and
pliable - who's ready to follow orders ? Best of luck.
"... The annual unemployment rate topped 8% in 1975 and would reach nearly 10% in 1982. The economy seemed trapped in the new nightmare of stagflation," so called because it combined low economic growth and high unemployment ("stagnation") with high rates of inflation. And the prime rate hit 20% by 1980. ..."
If anything, IBM is behind the curve. I was terminated along with my entire department from a
major IBM subcontractor, with all affected employees "coincidentally" being over 50. By
"eliminating the department" and forcing me to sign a waiver to receive my meager severance,
they avoided any legal repercussions. 18 months later on the dot (the minimum legal time
period), my workload was assigned to three new hires, all young. Interestingly, their
combined salaries are more than mine, and I could have picked up all their work for about
$200 in training (in social media posting, something I picked up on my own last year and am
doing quite well, thank you).
And my former colleagues are not alone. A lot of friends of mine have had similar
outcomes, and as the article states, no one will hire people my age willingly in my old
capacity. Luckily again, I've pivoted into copywriting--a discipline where age is still
associated with quality ("dang kids can't spell anymore!"). But I'm doing it freelance, with
the commensurate loss of security, benefits, and predictability of income.
So if IBM is doing this now, they are laggards. But because they're so big, there's a much
more obvious paper trail.
One of the most in-depth, thoughtful and enlightening pieces of journalism I've seen. Having
worked on Capitol Hill during the early 1980's for the House and Senate Aging Committees, we
worked hard to abolish the remnants of mandatory retirement and to strengthen the protections
under the ADEA. Sadly, the EEOC has become a toothless bureaucracy when it comes to age
discrimination cases and the employers, as evidenced by the IBM case, have become
sophisticated in hiding what they're doing to older workers. Peter's incredibly well
researched article lays the case out for all to see. Now the question is whether the
government will step up to its responsibilities and protect older workers from this kind of
discrimination in the future. Peter has done a great service in any case.
The US tech sector has mostly ignored US citizen applicants, of all ages, since the early
2000s. Instead, preferring to hire foreign nationals. The applications of top US citizen
grads are literally thrown in the garbage (or its electronic equivalent) while companies like
IBM have their hiring processes dominated by Indian nationals. IBM is absolutely a
poster-child for H-1B, L-1, and OPT visa abuse.
Bottom line is we have entered an era when there are only two classes who are protected in
our economy; the Investor Class and the Executive Class. With Wall Street's constant demand
for higher profits and increased shareholder value over all other business imperatives, rank
and file workers have been relegated to the class of expendable resource. I propose that all
of us over fifty who have been riffed out of Corporate America band together for the specific
purpose of beating the pants off them in the marketplace. The best revenge is whooping their
youngster butts at the customer negotiating table. By demonstrating we are still flexible and
nimble, yet with the experience to avoid the missteps of misspent youth, we prove we can
deliver value well beyond what narrow-minded bean counters can achieve.
I started at IBM 3 days out of college in 1979 and retired in 2017. I was satisfied with my
choice and never felt mistreated because I had no expectation of lifetime employment,
especially after the pivotal period in the 1990's when IBM almost went out of business. The
company survived that period by dramatically restructuring both manufacturing costs and sales
expense including the firing of tens of thousands of employees. These actions were well
documented in the business news of the time, the obvious alternative was bankruptcy.
I told the authors that anyone working at IBM after 1993 should have had no expectation of
a lifetime career. Downsizing, outsourcing, movement of work around the globe was already
commonplace at all such international companies. Any expectation of "loyalty", that two-way
relationship of employee/company from an earlier time, was wishful thinking. I was always
prepared to be sent packing, without cause, at any time and always had my resume up-to-date.
I stayed because of interesting work, respectful supervisors, and adequate compensation. The
"resource action" that forced my decision to retire was no surprise, the company that hired
me had been gone for decades.
With all the automation going on around the world, these business leaders better worry about
people not having money to buy their goods and services plus what are they going to do with
the surplus of labor
I had, more or less, the same experience at Cisco. They paid me to quit. Luckily, I was ready
for it.
The article mentions IBMs 3 failures. So who was it that was responsible for not
anticipating the transitions? It is hard enough doing what you already know. Perhaps
companies should be spending more on figuring out "what's next" and not continually playing
catch-up by dumping the older workers for the new.
I was laid off by IBM after 29 years and 4 months. I had received a division award in
previous year, and my last PBC appraisal was 2+ (high performer.) The company I left was not
the company I started with. Top management--starting with Gerstner--has steadily made IBM a
less desirable place to work. They now treat employees as interchangeable assets and nothing
more. I cannot/would not recommend IBM as an employer to any young programmer.
Truly awesome work. I do want to add one thing, however--the entire rhetoric about "too many
old white guys" that has become so common absolutely contributes to the notion that this sort
of behavior is not just acceptable but in some twisted way admirable as well.
Is anyone surprised that so many young people don't think capitalism is a good system any
more?
I ran a high technology electronic systems company for years. We ran it "the old way." If
you worked hard, and tried, we would bend over backwards to keep you. If technology or
business conditions eliminated your job, we would try to train you for a new one. Our people
were loyal, not like IBMers today. I honestly think that's the best way to be profitable.
People afraid of being unjustly RIFFed will always lack vitality.
I'm glad someone is finally paying attention to age discrimination. IBM apparently is just
one of many organizations that discriminate.
I'm in the middle of my own fight with the State University of New York (SUNY) over age
discrimination. I was terminated by a one of the technical colleges in the SUNY System. The
EEOC/New York State Division of Human Rights (NYDHR) found that "PROBABLE CAUSE (NYDHR's
emphasis) exists to believe that the Respondent (Alfred State College - SUNY) has engaged in
or is engaging in the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of." Investigators for
NYDHR interviewed several witnesses, who testified that representatives of the college made
statements such as "we need new faces", "three old men" attending a meeting, an older faculty
member described as an "albatross", and "we ought to get rid of the old white guys".
Witnesses said these statements were made by the Vice President of Academic Affairs and a
dean at the college.
This saga at IBM is simply a microcosm of our overall economy. Older workers get ousted in
favor of younger, cheaper workers; way too many jobs get outsourced; and so many workers
today [young and old] can barely land a full-time job.
This is the behavior that our system incentivises (and gets away with) in this post Reagan
Revolution era where deregulation is lauded and unions have been undermined & demonized.
We need to seriously re-work 'work', and in order to do this we need to purge Republicans at
every level, as they CLEARLY only serve corporate bottom-lines - not workers - by championing
tax codes that reward outsourcing, fight a livable minimum wage, eliminate pensions, bust
unions, fight pay equity for women & family leave, stack the Supreme Court with radical
ideologues who blatantly rule for corporations over people all the time, etc. etc. ~35 years
of basically uninterrupted Conservative economic policy & ideology has proven disastrous
for workers and our quality of life. As goes your middle class, so goes your country.
I am a retired IBM manager having had to execute many of these resource reduction programs..
too many.. as a matter of fact. ProPUBLICA....You nailed it!
IBM has always treated its customer-facing roles like Disney -- as cast members who need to
match a part in a play. In the 60s and 70s, it was the white-shirt, blue-suit white men whom
IBM leaders thought looked like mainframe salesmen. Now, rather than actually build a
credible cloud to compete with Amazon and Microsoft, IBM changes the cast to look like cloud
salespeople. (I work for Microsoft. Commenting for myself alone.)
I am a survivor, the rare employee who has been at IBM for over 35 years. I have seen many,
many layoff programs over 20 years now. I have seen tens of thousands people let go from the
Hudson Valley of N.Y. Those of us who have survived, know and lived through what this article
so accurately described. I currently work with 3 laid off/retired and rehired contractors. I
have seen age discrimination daily for over 15 years. It is not only limited to layoffs, it
is rampant throughout the company. Promotions, bonuses, transfers for opportunities, good
reviews, etc... are gone if you are over 45. I have seen people under 30 given promotions to
levels that many people worked 25 years for. IBM knows that these younger employees see how
they treat us so they think they can buy them off. Come to think of it, I guess they actually
are! They are ageist, there is no doubt, it is about time everyone knew. Excellent article.
Nice article, but seriously this is old news. IBM has been at this for ...oh twenty years or
more.
I don't really have a problem with it in terms of a corporation trying to make money. But I
do have a problem with how IBM also likes to avoid layoffs by giving folks over 40
intentionally poor reviews, essentially trying to drive people out. Just have the guts to
tell people, we don't need you anymore, bye. But to string people along as the overseas
workers come in...c'mon just be honest with your workers.
High tech over 40 is not easy...I suggest folks prep for a career change before 50. Then you
can have the last laugh on a company like IBM.
From pages 190-191 of my novel, Ordinary Man (Amazon):
Throughout
it all, layoffs became common, impacting mostly older employees with many years
of service. These job cuts were dribbled out in small numbers to conceal them
from the outside world, but employees could plainly see what was going on.
The laid off
employees were supplanted by offshoring work to low-costs countries and hiring
younger employees, often only on temporary contracts that offered low pay and
no benefits – a process pejoratively referred to by veteran employees as
"downsourcing." The recruitment of these younger workers was done under the
guise of bringing in fresh skills, but while many of the new hires brought new
abilities and vitality, they lacked the knowledge and perspective that comes
with experience.
Frequently,
an older more experienced worker would be asked to help educate newer
employees, only to be terminated shortly after completing the task. And the new
hires weren't fooled by what they witnessed and experienced at OpenSwitch,
perceiving very quickly that the company had no real interest in investing in
them for the long term. To the contrary, the objective was clearly to grind as
much work out of them as possible, without offering any hope of increased
reward or opportunity.
Most of the
young recruits left after only a year or two – which, again, was part of the
true agenda at the company. Senior management viewed employees not as talent,
but simply as cost, and didn't want anyone sticking around long enough to move
up the pay scale.
This is the nail in the coffin. As an IT manager responsible for selecting and purchasing
software, I will never again recommend IBM products. I love AIX and have worked with a lot if
IBM products but not anymore. Good luck with the millennials though...
I worked for four major corporations (HP, Intel, Control Data Corporation, and Micron
Semiconductor) before I was hired by IBM as a rare (at that time) experienced new hire. Even
though I ended up working for IBM for 21 years, and retired in 2013, because of my
experiences at those other companies, I never considered IBM my "family." The way I saw it,
every time I received a paycheck from IBM in exchange for two weeks' work, we were (almost)
even. I did not owe them anything else and they did not owe me anything. The idea of loyalty
between a corporation and an at-will employee makes no more sense than loyalty between a
motel and its guests. It is a business arrangement, not a love affair. Every individual needs
to continually assess their skills and their value to their employer. If they are not
commensurate, it is the employee's responsibility to either acquire new skills or seek a new
employer. Your employer will not hesitate to lay you off if your skills are no longer needed,
or if they can hire someone who can do your job just as well for less pay. That is free
enterprise, and it works for people willing to take advantage of it.
I basically agree. But why should it be OK for a company to fire you just to replace you with
a younger you? If all that they accomplish is lowering their health care costs (which is what
this is really about). If the company is paying about the same for the same work, why is
firing older workers for being older OK?
Good question. The point I was trying to make is that people need to watch out for themselves
and not expect their employer to do what is "best" for the employee. I think that is true
whatever age the employee happens to be.
Whether employers should be able to discriminate against (treat differently) their
employees based on age, gender, race, religion, etc. is a political question. Morally, I
don't think they should discriminate. Politically, I think it is a slippery slope when the
government starts imposing regulations on free enterprise. Government almost always creates
more problems than they fix.
Sorry, but when you deregulate the free enterprise, it created more problems than it fixes
and that is a fact that has been proven for the last 38 years.
That's just plain false. Deregulation creates competiiton. Competition for talented and
skilled workers creates opportunities for those that wish to be employed and for those that
wish to start new ventures. For example, when Ma Bell was regulated and had a monopoly on
telecommunications there was no innovation in the telecom inudstry. However, when it was
deregulated, cell phones, internet, etc exploded ... creating billionaires and millionaires
while also improving the quality of life.
No, it happens to be true. When Reagan deregulate the economy, a lot of those corporate
raiders just took over the companies, sold off the assets, and pocketed the money. What
quality of life? Half of American lived near the poverty level and the wages for the workers
have been stagnant for the last 38 years compared to a well-regulated economy in places like
Germany and the Scandinavian countries where the workers have good wages and a far better
standard of living than in the USA. Why do you think the Norwegians told Trump that they will
not be immigrating to the USA anytime soon?
What were the economic conditions before Regan? It was a nightmare before Regan.
The annual unemployment rate topped 8% in 1975 and would reach nearly 10% in 1982. The
economy seemed trapped in the new nightmare of stagflation," so called because it combined
low economic growth and high unemployment ("stagnation") with high rates of inflation. And
the prime rate hit 20% by 1980.
At least we had a manufacturing base in the USA, strong regulations of corporations,
corporate scandals were far and few, businesses did not go under so quickly, prices of goods
and services did not go through the roof, people had pensions and could reasonably live off
them, and recessions did not last so long or go so deep until Reagan came into office. In
Under Reagan, the jobs were allowed to be send overseas, unions were busted up, pensions were
reduced or eliminated, wages except those of the CEOs were staganent, and the economic
conditions under Bush, Senior and Bush, Jr. were no better except that Bush, Jr, was the
first president to have a net minus below zero growth, so every time we get a Republican
Administration, the economy really turns into a nightmare. That is a fact.
You have the Republicans in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin using Reaganomics and they are
economic disaster areas.
You had an industrial base in the USA, lots of banks and savings and loans to choose from,
lots of mom and pop stores, strong government regulation of the economy, able to live off
your pensions, strong unions and employment laws along with the court system to back you up
against corporate malfeasance. All that was gone when Reagan and the two Bushes came into
office.
Amazingly accurate article. The once great IBM now a dishonest and unscrupulous corporation
concerned more about earnings per share than employees, customers, or social responsibility.
In Global Services most likely 75% or more jobs are no longer in the US - can't believe a
word coming out of Armonk.
I'm not sure there was ever a paradise in employment. Yeah, you can say there was more job
stability 50 or 60 years ago, but that applied to a much smaller workforce than today (mostly
white men). It is a drag, but there are also lot more of us old farts than there used to be
and we live a lot longer in retirement as well. I don't see any magic bullet fix either.
Great article. What's especially infuriating is that the industry continues to claim that
there is a shortage of STEM workers. For example, google "claim of 1.4 million computer
science jobs with only 400,000 computer science graduates to fill them". If companies would
openly say, "we have plenty of young STEM workers and prefer them to most older STEM
workers", we could at least start addressing the problem. But they continue to promote the
lie of there being a STEM shortage. They just want as big a labor pool as possible,
unemployed workers be damned.
I've worked there 17 years and have worried about being layed off for about 11 of them. Moral
is in the toilet. Bonuses for the rank and file are in the under 1% range while the CEO gets
millions. Pay raises have been non existent or well under inflation for years. Adjusting for
inflation, I make $6K less than I did my first day. My group is a handful of people as at
least 1/2 have quit or retired. To support our customers, we used to have several people, now
we have one or two and if someone is sick or on vacation, our support structure is to hope
nothing breaks. We can't keep millennials because of pay, benefits and the expectation of
being available 24/7 because we're shorthanded. As the unemployment rate drops, more leave to
find a different job, leaving the old people as they are less willing to start over with pay,
vacation, moving, selling a house, pulling kids from school, etc. The younger people are
generally less likely to be willing to work as needed on off hours or to pull work from a
busier colleague. I honestly have no idea what the plan is when the people who know what they
are doing start to retire, we are way top heavy with 30-40 year guys who are on their way
out, very few of the 10-20 year guys due to hiring freezes and we can't keep new people past
2-3 years. It's like our support business model is designed to fail.
Make no mistake. The three and four letter acronyms and other mushy corporate speak may
differ from firm to firm, but this is going on in every large tech company old enough to have
a large population of workers over 50. I hope others will now be exposed.
This article hits the nail right on the head, as I come up on my 1 year anniversary from
being....ahem....'retired' from 23 years at IBM....and I'll be damned if I give them the
satisfaction of thinking this was like a 'death' to me. It was the greatest thing that could
have ever happened. Ginny and the board should be ashamed of themselves, but they won't be.
Starting around age 40 you start to see age discrimination. I think this is largely due to
economics, like increased vacation times, higher wages, but most of all the perception that
older workers will run up the medical costs. You can pass all the age related discrimination
laws you want, but look how ineffective that has been.
If you contrast this with the German workforce, you see that they have more older workers
with the skills and younger workers without are having a difficult time getting in. So what's
the difference? There are laws about how many vacation weeks that are given and there is a
national medical system that everyone pays, so discrimination isn't seen in the same
light.
The US is the only hold out maybe with South Africa that doesn't have a good national
medical insurance program for everyone. Not only do we pay more than the rest of the world,
but we also have discrimination because of it.
This is very good, and this is IBM. I know. I was plaintiff in Gundlach v. IBM Japan, 983
F.Supp.2d 389, which involved their violating Japanese labor law when I worked in Japan. The
New York federal judge purposely ignored key points of Japanese labor law, and also refused
to apply Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment to the parent company in Westchester
County. It is a huge, self-described "global" company with little demonstrated loyalty to
America and Americans. Pennsylvania is suing them for $170 million on a botched upgrade of
the state's unemployment system.
In early 2013 I was given a 3 PBC rating for my 2012 performance, the main reason cited by my
manager being that my team lead thought I "seemed distracted". Five months later I was
included in a "resource action", and was gone by July. I was 20 months shy of 55. Younger
coworkers were retained. That was about two years after the product I worked on for over a
decade was off-shored.
Through a fluke of someone from the old, disbanded team remembering me, I was rehired two
years later - ironically in a customer support position for the very product I helped
develop.
While I appreciated my years of service, previous salary, and previous benefits being
reinstated, a couple years into it I realized I just wasn't cut out for the demands of the
job - especially the significant 24x7 pager duty. Last June I received email describing a
"Transition to Retirement" plan I was eligible for, took it, and my last day will be June 30.
I still dislike the job, but that plan reclassified me as part time, thus ending pager duty
for me. The job still sucks, but at least I no longer have to despair over numerous week long
24x7 stints throughout the year.
A significant disappointment occurred a couple weeks ago. I was discussing healthcare
options with another person leaving the company who hadn't been resource-actioned as I had,
and learned the hard way I lost over $30,000 in some sort of future medical benefit account
the company had established and funded at some point. I'm not sure I was ever even aware of
it. That would have funded several years of healthcare insurance during the 8 years until I'm
eligible for Medicare. I wouldn't be surprised if their not having to give me that had
something to do with my seeming "distracted" to them. <rolls eyes="">
What's really painful is the history of that former account can still be viewed at
Fidelity, where it associates my departure date in 2013 with my having "forfeited" that
money. Um, no. I did not forfeit that money, nor would I have. I had absolutely no choice in
the matter. I find the use of the word 'forfeited' to describe what happened as both
disingenuous and offensive. That said, I don't know whether's that's IBM's or Fidelity's
terminology, though.
Jeff, You should call Fidelity. I recently received a letter from the US Department of Labor
that they discovered that IBM was "holding" funds that belonged to me that I was never told
about. This might be similar or same story.
Great article. And so so close to home. I worked at IBM for 23 years until I became yet
another statistic -- caught up in one of their many "RA's" -- Resource Actions. I also can
identify with the point about being encouraged to find a job internally yet hiring managers
told to not hire. We were encouraged to apply for jobs outside the US -- Europe mainly -- as
long as we were willing to move and work at the prevailing local wage rate. I was totally
fine with that as my wife had been itching for some time for a chance to live abroad. I
applied for several jobs across Europe using an internal system IBM set up just for that
purpose. Never heard a word. Phone calls and internal e-mails to managers posting jobs in the
internal system went unanswered. It turned out to be a total sham as far as I was concerned.
IBM has laid off hundreds of thousands in the last few decades. Think of the MILLIONS of
children, spouses, brothers/sisters, aunts/uncles, and other family members of laid-off
people that were affected. Those people are or will be business owners and in positions to
make technology decisions. How many of them will think "Yeah, right, hire IBM. They're the
company that screwed daddy/mommy". I fully expect -- and I fully hope -- that I live to see
IBM go out of business. Which they will, sooner or later, as they are living off of past
laurels -- billions in the bank, a big fat patent portfolio, and real estate that they
continue to sell off or rent out. If you do hire IBM, you should fully expect that they'll
send some 20-something out to your company a few weeks after you hire them, that person will
be reading "XYZ for Dummys" on the plane on the way to your offices and will show up as your
IBM 'expert'.
"... Bankers, agro-business elites, commercial mega owners, manufacturing, real estate and insurance bosses and their financial advisers, elite members of the 'ruling class', have launched a full-scale attack on private and public wage and salary workers, and small and medium size entrepreneurs (the members of the 'popular classes'). The attack has targeted income ,pensions, medical plans, workplace conditions, job security, rents, mortgages, educational costs, taxation,undermining family and household cohesion. ..."
"... Big business has weakened or abolished political and social organizations which challenge the distribution of income and profits and influence the rates of workplace output. In brief the ruling classes have intensified exploitation and oppression through the 'class struggle' from above. ..."
"... The United States witnessed the ruling class take full control of the state, the workplace and distribution of social expenditures. ..."
"... The upsurge of the popular class struggle was contained and confined by the center-left political elite, while the ruling class marked time, making business deals to secure lucrative state contracts via bribes to the ruling center-left allied with the conservative political elite . ..."
"... The big business ruling class learned their lessons from their previous experience with weak and conciliating neo-liberal regimes. They sought authoritarian and, if possible rabble rousing political leaders, who could dismantle the popular organizations, and gutted popular welfare programs and democratic institutions, which previously blocked the consolidation of the neo-liberal New Order. ..."
"... The term "invidious distinction" was coined by Thornstein Veblen in his seminal "The Theory of the Leisure Class", in which Veblen argues that one of the primary human motivations is to evoke envy in our fellows. ..."
"... "Popular" class struggles need to be seen for what they are; temporary expedients whereby one set of rulers uses the populace for their own ends and against their competitors. ..."
"... Too many people get suckered into supporting "popular" movements and sometimes do gain temporary benefits, but when their handlers get what they want, the fun and games are over. ..."
Bankers, agro-business elites, commercial mega owners, manufacturing, real estate and
insurance bosses and their financial advisers, elite members of the 'ruling class', have
launched a full-scale attack on private and public wage and salary workers, and small and
medium size entrepreneurs (the members of the 'popular classes'). The attack has targeted
income ,pensions, medical plans, workplace conditions, job security, rents, mortgages,
educational costs, taxation,undermining family and household cohesion.
Big business has weakened or abolished political and social organizations which challenge
the distribution of income and profits and influence the rates of workplace output. In brief
the ruling classes have intensified exploitation and oppression through the 'class struggle'
from above.
We will proceed by identifying the means, methods and socio-political conditions which have
advanced the class struggle from above and, conversely, reversed and weakened the class
struggle from below.
Historical Context
The class struggle is the major determinant of the advances and regression of the interests
of the capitalist class. Following the Second World War, the popular classes experienced steady
advances in income, living standards, and work place representation. However by the last decade
of the 20 th century the balance of power between the ruling and popular classes
began to shift, as a new 'neo-liberal' development paradigm became prevalent.
First and foremost, the state ceased to negotiate and conciliate relations between rulers
and the working class: the [neoliberal] state concentrated on de-regulating the economy,
reducing corporate taxes, and eliminating labor's role in politics and the division of profits
and income.
The concentration of state power and income was not uncontested and was not uniform in all
regions and countries. Moreover, counter-cyclical trends, reflecting shifts in the balance of
the class struggle precluded a linear process. In Europe, the Nordic and Western European
countries' ruling classes advanced privatization of public enterprises, reduced social welfare
costs and benefits, and pillaged overseas resources but were unable to break the state funded
welfare system. In Latin America the advance and regression of the power, income and welfare of
the popular class, correlated with the outcome of the class and state struggle.
The United States witnessed the ruling class take full control of the state, the
workplace and distribution of social expenditures.
In brief, by the end of the 20 th century, the ruling class advanced in assuming
a dominant role in the class struggle.
Nevertheless, the class struggle from below retained its presence, and in some places,
namely in Latin America, the popular classes were able to secure a share of state power –
at least temporarily.
Popular Power: Contesting the Class Struggle from Above
Latin America is a prime example of the uneven trajectory of the class struggle.
Between the end of World War Two and the late 1940's, the popular classes were able to
secure democratic rights, populist reforms and social organization. Guatemala, Argentina,
Uruguay, Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela were among the leading examples. By the early 1950's with
the onset of the US imperialist 'cold war', in collaboration with the regional ruling classes
launched a violent class war from above, which took the form of military coups in Guatemala,
Peru, Argentina, Venezuela and Brazil. The populist class struggle was defeated by the US
backed military- business rulers who, temporarily imposed US agro-mineral export economies.
The 1950's were the 'golden epoch' for the advance of US multi-nationals and Pentagon
designed regional military alliances. But the class struggle from below rose again and found
expression in the growth of a progressive national populist industrializing coalition, and the
successful Cuban socialist regime and its followers in revolutionary social movements in the
rest of Latin America throughout the 1960's.
The revolutionary popular class insurgency of the early 1960's was countered by the ruling
class seizure of power backed by military-US led coups between 1964-1976 which demolished the
regimes and institutions of the popular classes in Brazil (1964), Bolivia (1970), Chile (1973),
Argentina (1976) , Peru (1973) and elsewhere.
Economic crises of the early 1980s reduced the role of the military and led to a 'negotiated
transition' in which the ruling class advanced a neo-liberal agenda in exchange for electoral
participation under military and US tutelage.
Lacking direct military rule, the ruling class struggle succeeded in muting the popular
class struggle by co-opting the center-left political elites. The ruling class did not or could
not establish hegemony over the popular classes even as they proceeded with their neo-liberal
agenda.
With the advent of the 21 st century a new cycle in the class struggle from below
burst forth. Three events intersected: the global crises of 2000 triggered regional financial
crashes, which in turn led to a collapse of industries and mass unemployment, which intensified
mass direct action and the ouster of the neo-liberal regimes. Throughout the first decade of
the 21 st century, neo-liberalism was in retreat. The popular class struggle and the
rise of social movements displaced the neo-liberal regimes but was incapable of replacing the
ruling classes. Instead hybrid center-left electoral regimes took power.
The new power configuration incorporated popular social movements, center-left parties and
neo-liberal business elites. Over the next decade the cross-class alliance advanced largely
because of the commodity boom which financed welfare programs, increased employment,
implemented poverty reduction programs and expanded investments in infrastructure.
Post-neoliberal regimes co-opted the leaders of the popular classes, replaced ruling class
political elites but did not displace the strategic structural positions of the business ruling
class..
The upsurge of the popular class struggle was contained and confined by the center-left
political elite, while the ruling class marked time, making business deals to secure lucrative
state contracts via bribes to the ruling center-left allied with the conservative political
elite .
The end of the commodity boom, forced the center-left to curtail its social welfare and
infrastructure programs and fractured the alliance between big business leaders and center-left
political elites. The ensuing economic recession facilitated the return of the neo-liberal
political elite to power.
The big business ruling class learned their lessons from their previous experience with weak
and conciliating neo-liberal regimes. They sought authoritarian and, if possible rabble rousing
political leaders, who could dismantle the popular organizations, and gutted popular welfare
programs and democratic institutions, which previously blocked the consolidation of the
neo-liberal New Order.
"The rightist rhetoric turns against itself as its followers engage in invidious
distinctions ."
Interesting. You don't see Veblen's "invidious distinction" trotted out very often these
days which is a pity. More the pity that it is misused in quote above. It's probably
uncharitable to take cheap shots at the article, which is a beautiful, anti-fa inspired,
fairytale history of the modern age. I just wish more care would be used for Marxist and
non-marxist socialist phrases such as "class struggle" and "invidious distinction" because it
impossible to detest them adequately when they are improperly deployed.
The term "invidious distinction" was coined by Thornstein Veblen in his seminal "The
Theory of the Leisure Class", in which Veblen argues that one of the primary human
motivations is to evoke envy in our fellows. Veblen thought that because all value is
subjective/arbitrary, it's quite reasonable to assume that the most efficient value signal is
that which creates the most envy in other men. A man's social standing is therefore
efficiently established by status symbols that invoke envy such as a Rolex or a Mercedes. The
peculiar consequence of this is that often, men desire a thing like a Rolex because other men
want one, even up to the point when the object lacks any utility whatsoever other than signaling wealth, which itself is defined as having things that others want. Invidious
distinction is therefore best evidenced through conspicuous consumption, however nearly all
actions that do not have subsistence as their aim are undertaken to gain social standing or
signal social standing by invoking envy.
Thus the quote above could be rewritten to be "The rightist rhetoric turns against
itself as its followers engage in non-subsistence activities" which is kind of dumb. If
the author is prognosticating that the authoritarian new order will turn on itself, it'd be
nice to know have a more substantive explanation than "non-subsistence activities". Moreover,
if the authoritarian new order is to shed it's "shock troops" in exchange for "meritocrats"
it'd be nice to know why. That's my 2 cents, but I'm curious to know what others think of
this curious tale!
The corruption of upwardly mobile middle-class rabble rousers will disillusion their
voluntary followers. Arbitrary police and military repression usually extends to extortion
and intimidation beyond the drug slums to the middle and working-class neighborhoods.
Also, the rise of AI, data mining, and complex algorithms, as well as the proliferation of
electronic devices that record and analyze our private spaces is a pillar of the new order.
Essentially, we are being watched by machines.
People need to reject the material order. Spiritual awakening is the key.
Revolutionaries will find new ways to defeat these technology-based tactics. Dogwhistling,
communication on a personal level (rather than by mass media or the internet), and
old-fashioned tribalism should help. Also, leaderless resistance can play a role. Weaknesses
will be found in the crumbling edifice, and many hands can chisel separately.
Infiltration and sabotage can also be applied.
Possibly unrelated, but maybe thought-provoking:
Consider the man they just arrested for the mail bomb scare. Reportedly, this person was a
career criminal with drug dealing and grand theft on his record and he was caught in
possession of a white van with decals on it depicting his targets. This man is a caricature
of a Trump supporter, ready-made for the cable news broadcast. Does anyone else see the
absurdity of it? Can this guy be for real?
The authoritarian New Order usually begins to decline through 'internal rot' –
uber- profiteering and flagrant abuse of work.
" However sustaining their advance is conditional on dynamic economic growth "
You cannot fool all people all the time.
Our Dutch Rutte governments now for some ten years have told us that the economy is growing,
alas the average Dutchman by now knows that 'there are lies, big lies, and statistics', in
other words, it may well be that the economy is growing, but the average Dutchman does not
see his buying power increased.
On the contrary, those that work have a more or less constant buying power, those that do not
work, for whatever reason: cannot find a job, permanent illness, retired, see quite well how
their material position deteriorates steadily.
The alliance of big globalized business and big Governments is an unbearable burden for most
of the populations. Since the 70`s you have to work more and more and to study more and more for less and
less
I foresee that if this continue in the next 20 years millions and millions of people will
die of marginalization, of hunger , misery and grief .
This is the most important problem governments, and in the wider sense humanity is
encountering.
The pendulum is incessantly swinging from center to right and than reverses from right to
left.
Marx theories are totally one sided and do not solve anything. Extreme swing to the left
brought at start enthusiasm of the working classes and for certain time progress of the
humanity was phenomenal. But in time the progress did stop and population become lethargic
and progress become stagnation leading to depression. Similar thing happens when pendulum is
swinging to the right.
Eventually the purchasing power of the population diminishes to the size when crisis of the
system is inevitable.
Most important task of the governments is to control the economy that the extent of the
swings are small as possible.
@Anon Things seem to have improved in Asia since I first went abroad in 2000. In the US,
on the other hand, life seems to have gotten more and more difficult.
If you had told me in 1993 when I left home that Gen Y of age 30 would live at home and
that entire families of white people would be homeless or that MBA's would have to work in
Bistros at age 25 I would have said you're crazed.
The odd thing in the US is that it is the middle-class seems to have gotten hit the worst.
The white underclass and blacks have always had it hard and poor. Much of the time they
deserve it because they have babies at 19 and don't go to college. But the destruction of the
middle-class whites is quite phenomenal.
It is unbearable for the middle-class. The underclass does not care. Big governments tend
to be corrupt, so money talks. If you live in the ghetto or the trailer park you have no expectations anyhow. You were
not going to be a great citizen anyhow. But for the middle-class things will be shocking.
I doubt that such a thing ever occurred to any substantial degree. "Popular" class
struggles need to be seen for what they are; temporary expedients whereby one set of rulers
uses the populace for their own ends and against their competitors.
Too many people get suckered into supporting "popular" movements and sometimes do gain
temporary benefits, but when their handlers get what they want, the fun and games are over.
The author noted the concept, saying,
Between the end of World War Two and the late 1940's, the popular classes were able to
secure democratic rights, populist reforms and social organization. [but then began]
bullying of traditional allies
No "will be" about it. You noted it in your comment #10 and my observations agree,
But the destruction of the middle-class whites is quite phenomenal.
The assault on the middle class has been taking place for decades and many people have
been feeling it although most apparently still hope for some Messiah, and many of them
apparently think either Hillaryena or the Trumpster was it. Where they get their faith I'll
never know.
@jilles dykstra Same thing in Spain, and in most of western Europe I would say . The macroeconomy is going well for the chosen ones , and the microeconomy is going very bad for
most of the population .
Much of the time they deserve it because they don't go to college.
Wrong.
Schooling in the USA for some time been nothing more than babysitting and brainwashing and
that's by design. Completing college nowadays is mainly for immature, dependent losers
especially since many of them will be burdened with a non-marketable degree and debt for
decades and in any case, the majority will wind up as wage slaves anyway. The way to go now
is to learn a trade, especially one that a person can practice independently and with low
capital, and get to work, but the window for even that seems to be fast closing too.
If one has the talent (rare) sales can still be a good road to relative independence with
no "collitch" needed.
@Jeff Stryker "If you live in the ghetto or the trailer park you have no expectations
anyhow. You were not going to be a great citizen anyhow."
"But for the middle-class things will be shocking."
Spot on, Jeff. I see remnants of the onetime middle class around me. People with a degree or advanced degree, people with
identifiable special skills (accountancy, engineering) who guard their expertise as would a 15th century guild worker, people
with decent table manners...
Then their Fortune 500 company kicks them out of their corporate featherbed, they spend a
year or two or more discovering their specialized skills are worth half of what they'd
thought, and when they land a job, they're expected to cook the books or sign off on dodgy
products, acting as designated corporate fall guys in the event of an investigation.
When I was in university there was no Leftist programming. People were
there to become engineers, IT specialists, doctors, nurses, businessmen, accounting.
You maybe had to take an "African-American studies" course but that was just to get enough
credits to graduate. Also, by the time most people went to college (when I did from 93-98) they were adults
with opinions. Sales is a diminishing field now with the internet.
@jim jones A shrewd observation is my immediate reaction. Most likely true of the
organised institutional left which, when it's old product no longer sells doesn't want to
declare bankruptcy and shut up shop.
"Government exists to spend. The purpose of government is to serve the general welfare of the
citizens, not just the military-industrial complex and the financial class. Didn't we have a
stimulus, oh, eight years ago? It was tiny and has not been entirely spent. As Yellen
implied, we need more spending of the non-military kind (what Barney Frank memorably called
"weaponized Keynesianism" doesn't stimulate)."
This is what has been missing for over 40 years in the US, government's role in the
economy. When any politician brings up the fact that it's time we used fiscal policy as it
was designed, neoliberals have a socialism meltdown. Both parties have been taken over by the
Kochtopus, The libertarian fascist ideology that hides behind the term "neoliberalism". The
ultimate goal of this zombie ideology that was thoroughly discredited in 2008 but continues
to roam the earth is to replace nations with privately owned cities. This experiment was
going on in Honduras, following the 2009 coup, until it was finally ended by a SC ruling that
it was unconstitutional.
"In a libertarian society, there is no commons or public space. There are property
lines, not borders. When it comes to real property and physical movement across such real
property, there are owners, guests, licensees, business invitees and trespassers – not
legal and illegal immigrants." ~ Jeff Deist, president of the Mises Institute
This is the struggle – the struggle to maintain public space on a planet that was
never meant to be owned in the first place.
The middle class in America has been declining for decades, and we continue to get even more
evidence of the catastrophic damage that has already been done.
According to the Social Security
Administration, the median yearly wage in the United States is just $30,533 at this point.
That means 50 percent of all American workers make at least that much per year, but that also
means that 50 percent of all American workers make that much or less per year. When you divide
$30,533 by 12, you get a median monthly wage of just over $2,500. But of course nobody can
provide a middle class standard of living for a family of four for just $2,500 a month, and we
will discuss this further below. So in most households at least two people are working, and in
many cases multiple jobs are being taken on by a single individual in a desperate attempt to
make ends meet. The American people are working harder than ever, and yet the middle class just
continues to erode .
The deeper we dig into the numbers provided by the Social Security Administration, the more
depressing they become. Here are just a few examples from their official website
-34 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.
-48 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.
-59 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.
-68 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.
At this moment, the federal poverty level for a family of five is $29,420 , and yet about half the workers in
the entire country don't even make that much on a yearly basis.
So can someone please explain to me again why people are saying that the economy is "doing
well"?
Many will point to how well the stock market has been doing, but the stock market has not
been an accurate barometer for the overall economy in a very, very long time.
And the stock market has already fallen
nearly 1,500 points since the beginning of the month. The bull market appears to be over
and the bears are licking their chops.
No matter who has been in the White House, and no matter which political party has
controlled Congress, the U.S. middle class has been systematically eviscerated year after year.
Many that used to be thriving may still even call themselves "middle class", but that doesn't
make it true.
You would think that someone making "the median income" in a country as wealthy as the
United States would be doing quite well. But the truth is that $2,500 a month won't get you
very far these days.
First of all, your family is going to need somewhere to live. Especially on the east and
west coasts, it is really hard to find something habitable for under $1,000 a month in 2018.
If you live in the middle of the country or in a rural area, housing prices are significantly
cheaper. But for the vast majority of us, let's assume a minimum of $1,000 a month for
housing costs.
Secondly, you will also need to pay your utility bills and other home-related expenses.
These costs include power, water, phone, television, Internet, etc. I will be extremely
conservative and estimate that this total will be about $300 a month.
Thirdly, each income earner will need a vehicle in order to get to work. In this example
we will assume one income earner and a car payment of just $200 a month.
So now we are already up to $1,500 a month. The money is running out fast.
Next, insurance bills will have to be paid. Health insurance premiums have gotten
ridiculously expensive in recent years, and many family plans are now well over $1,000 a
month. But for this example let's assume a health insurance payment of just $450 a month and
a car insurance payment of just $50 a month.
Of course your family will have to eat, and I don't know anyone that can feed a family of
four for just $500 a month, but let's go with that number.
So now we have already spent the entire $2,500, and we don't have a single penny left over
for anything else.
But wait, we didn't even account for taxes yet. When you deduct taxes, our fictional
family of four is well into the red every month and will need plenty of government
assistance.
This is life in America today, and it isn't pretty.
In his most recent article, Charles Hugh Smith estimated that an income of at
least $106,000 is required to maintain a middle class lifestyle in America today. That
estimate may be a bit high, but not by too much.
Yes, there is a very limited sliver of the population that has been doing well in recent
years, but most of the country continues to barely scrape by from month to month. Out in
California, Silicon Valley has generated quite a few millionaires, but the state also has the
highest poverty in the entire nation. For every Silicon Valley millionaire, there are thousands
upon thousands of poor people living in towns such as
Huron, California
Nearly 40 percent of Huron residents -- and almost half of all children -- live below the
poverty line, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That's more than double the statewide rate
of 19 percent reported last month, which is the highest in the U.S. The national average is
12.3 percent.
"We're in the Appalachians of the West," Mayor Rey Leon said. "I don't think enough
urgency is being taken to resolve a problem that has existed for way too long."
Multiple families and boarders pack rundown homes, only about a quarter of residents have
high school diplomas and most lack adequate health care in an area plagued with diabetes and
high asthma rates in one the nation's most polluted air basins.
One recent study found that the gap between the wealthy and the poor is the largest that it
has been
since the 1920s , and America's once thriving middle class is evaporating right in front of
our eyes.
We could have made much different choices as a society, but we didn't, and now we are going
to have a great price to pay for our foolishness...
About half of nonelderly Americans have one or more pre-existing health conditions,
according to a recent brief by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS,
that examined the prevalence of conditions that would have resulted in higher rates,
condition exclusions, or coverage denials before the ACA. Approximately 130 million
nonelderly people have pre-existing conditions nationwide, and, as shown in the table
available below, there is an average of more than 300,000 per congressional district.
Nationally, the most common pre-existing conditions were high blood pressure (44 million
people), behavioral health disorders (45 million people), high cholesterol (44 million
people), asthma and chronic lung disease (34 million people), and osteoarthritis and other
joint disorders (34 million people).
While people with Medicaid or employer-based plans would remain covered regardless of
medical history, the repeal of pre-ex protections means that the millions with pre-existing
conditions would face higher rates if they ever needed individual market coverage. The
return of pre-ex discrimination would hurt older Americans the most. As noted earlier,
while about 51 percent of the nonelderly population had at least one pre-existing condition
in 2014, according to the HHS brief, the rate was 75 percent of those ages 45 to 54 and 84
percent among those ages 55 to 64. But even millions of younger people, including 1 in 4
children, would be affected by eliminating this protection.
We're getting close to the end now. Can you feel it? I do. It's in the news, on the streets,
and in your face every day. You can't tune it out anymore, even if you wanted to.
Where once there was civil debate in the court of public opinion, we now have censorship
, monopoly , screaming , insults
,
demonization , and, finally, the use of force to
silence the opposition. There is no turning back now. The political extremes are going to war,
and you will be dragged into it even if you consider yourself apolitical.
There are great pivot points in history, and we've arrived at one. The United States,
ruptured by a thousand grievance
groups , torn by shadowy agencies drunk on a
gross excess of power ,
robbed blind by oligarchs and their treasonous henchmen and decimated by frivolous wars of choice, has
finally come to a point where the end begins in earnest. The center isn't holding indeed,
finding a center is no longer even conceivable. We are the schizophrenic nation, bound by no
societal norms, constrained by no religion, with no shared sense of history, myth, language,
art, philosophy, music, or culture, rushing toward an uncertain future fueled by nothing more
than easy money, hubris, and sheer momentum.
There comes a time when hard choices must be made...when it is no longer possible to remain
aloof or amused, because the barbarians have arrived at the gate. Indeed, they are here now,
and they often look a whole lot like deracinated, conflicted, yet bellicose fellow Americans,
certain of only one thing, and that is that they possess "rights", even though they could
scarcely form an intelligible sentence explaining exactly what those rights secure or how they
came into being. But that isn't necessary, from their point of view, you see. All they need is
a "voice" and membership in an approved victim class to enrich themselves at someone else's
expense . If you are thinking to yourself right now that this does not describe you, then guess
what? The joke's on you, and you are going to be expected to pay the bill that "someone else"
is you.
In reality, though, who can blame the minions, when the elites have their hand in the till
as well? In fact, they are even more hostile to reasoned discourse than Black Lives Matter , Occupy Wall Street,
or
Antifa . Witness the complete meltdown of the privileged classes when President Trump
mildly suggested that perhaps our "intelligence community" isn't to be trusted, which is after
all a fairly sober assessment when one considers the track record of the CIA ,
FBI , NSA
, BATF, and the other assorted Stasi agencies. Burning cop cars or bum-rushing
the odd Trump supporter seems kind of tame in comparison to the weeping and gnashing of teeth
when that hoary old MIC "intelligence" vampire was dragged screaming into the light. Yet Trump
did not drive a stake into its heart, nor at this point likely can anyone... and that is
exactly the point. We are now Thelma and Louise writ large. We are on
cruise control, happily speeding towards the cliff, and few seem to notice that our not so
distant future involves bankruptcy, totalitarianism, and/or nuclear annihilation. Even though
most of us couldn't identify the band, we nonetheless surely live the lyrics of the Grass
Roots : "Live for today, and don't worry about tomorrow."
The "Defense" Department, "Homeland" Security, big pharma, big oil, big education, civil
rights groups, blacks, Indians, Jews, the Deep State, government workers, labor unions,
Neocons, Populists, fundamentalist Christians, atheists, pro life and pro death advocates,
environmentalists, lawyers, homosexuals, women, Millenials, Baby Boomers, blue collar/white
collar, illegal aliens... the list goes on and on, but the point is that the conflicting
agendas of these disparate groups have been irreconcilable for some time. The difference today
is that we are de facto at war with each other, and whether it is a war of words or of actual
combat doesn't matter at the moment. What matters is that we no longer communicate, and when
that happens it is easy to demonize the other side. Violence is never far behind ignorance.
I am writing this from the bar at the Intercontinental
Hotel in Vienna, Austria. I have seen
with my own eyes the inundation of Europe with an influx of hostile aliens bent on the
destruction of Old Christendom, yet I have some hope for the eastern European countries because
they have finally recognized the threat and are working to neutralize it. Foreign malcontents
can never be successfully integrated into a civilized society because they don't even intend to
try;
they intend to conquer their host instead. Yet even though our own discontents are domestic
for the most part, we have a much harder row to hoe than Old Europe because our own "invaders"
are well entrenched and have been for decades, all the way up to the highest levels of
government. That there are signs Austria is finally waking up is a good thing, but it serves to
illustrate the folly of expecting the hostile cultures within our own country to get along with
each other without rupturing the republic. Indeed, that republic died long ago, and it has been
replaced by a metastasizing mass of amorphous humanity called the American Empire, and it is at
war with itself and consuming itself from within.
Long ago, we once knew that as American citizens each of us had a great responsibility. We
were expected to work hard, play fair, do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and
serve our country when called upon to do so. Today, we don't speak of duty, except in so much
as a slogan to promote war, but we certainly do speak of benefits for ourselves and our "group"
of entitled peeps. We will fail because of our greed and avarice. The United States of Empire
has become quite simply too big, too
diverse , and too
"exceptional" to survive.
The US belief in free markets isn't doing them any favours.
What goes wrong with free markets?
They found out in the 1930s, after believing in free markets in the 1920s.
Henry Simons was a firm believer in free markets, which is why he was at the University of
Chicago in the 1930s.
Having experienced 1929 and the Great Depression, he knew that the only way market
valuations would mean anything would be if the bankers couldn't inflate the markets by
creating money through loans.
Henry Simons and Irving Fisher supported the Chicago Plan to take away the bankers ability
to create money, so that free market valuations could have some meaning.
The real world and free market, neoclassical economics would then tie up.
The mandate to fight for the Republic ends in November, after that, it's optional. We'll
keep our part of the bargain, after that, the USA is on her own. There are too many people
who refuse to understand that the way to national health, goes through some rough valleys,
from the President, through congress, the states, and down to the regular folks.
Many are not paying attention, those that understand, are busy looting what's left, those
that'll pay, are wringing their hands in helplessness, or burying their heads like ostriches,
hoping denial of reality, will protect them from reality.
The political class has made the determination that rather than acknowledge reality, and
adjust accordingly, they'll instead implement a surveillance state, ensure comfortable
positions for themselves, and oppress the plebs into compliance. The plebs on their part,
have sacrificed their honor, integrity, and conscience, hoping the world can be looted, to
keep their standard of living.
What the protagonists fail to understand, or understanding, refuse to acknowledge, is that
ROW (Rest of World), is not amenable to looting anymore. Lootable generations are fading
away, unlootabke generations replacing them.
It can be confidently asserted now, that the West, devoid of Europe, has cast the dice for
the final gamble thus, intimidate the world into lootability, or threaten to take everyone
down as well. The problem? Russia responded thus, game on! India responded thus, bring it on!
Pakistan responded thus, up yours! Africa is responding thus, really? China is yet to respond
clearly but we know where they stand thus, what?
Does that mean the end of America? No! It means the end of the American delusion
masquerading as dream. You can't carry on this way, refusing to acknowledge reality, hoping
to somehow do the impossible thus, overturn the laws of nature. You simply cannot game the
rules, no matter how clever. It's analogous to inhaling, but refusing to exhale, it's
unsustainable, impossible in fact!
You have to exhale, or explode, no third choice. You can exhale slowly, Powell's way,
exhale in one breath, Gorbachev's way, or refuse to exhale, British way, with the attendant
consequences, disorderly disintegration.
Trump is trying not to exhale, while still trying to inhale. It's schizophrenic because
you neither get the benefit of fresh oxygen, nor rid yourself of unpleasant carbon dioxide.
Every attempt to do both simultaneously, wastes the available oxygen, while the carbon
dioxide builds up, turning you BLUE in the face, when what you really require, is a healthy
red complexion.
It's a paradox really, that folks are running in reverse, and yet claim their destination
is ahead, it doesn't make sense, it's basically self deception writ large. Well, November is
practically here, and then, we'll be free of all obligations and can thus move on. We very
much look forward to our liberty, very much indeed, this Republic restoration business, has
not been profitable at all, we're cutting our losses...
Myriad, conflicting, "security" departments only further prove 9-11 was a coup d' etat.
Plus it's all about oil (and now ethanol, think water next). Where the US once sent aid to
places like Honduras we now use it as a mere drug distribution center.
"The center isn't holding indeed, finding a center is no longer even conceivable. We are
the schizophrenic nation, bound by no societal norms,"
Free Speech. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
These are the core values of America. They are under attack, but still there. This is the
single thread that binds our history, culture, and identity together.
It's the left-cultural Marxist faction that has forgotten it, twisted it and made it about
'diversity.' Sold out our country to Chi-coms and globalists.
Anyone who doesn't understand this can either learn fast or GTFO
The best that can happen now - as many are jolted rudely out of their MSM-programmed sleep
- is for people to ask themselves, friends, neighbors, and - the $lime that currently runs
the place: how did we get to this nightmare the author describes? And sift the answers -
mercilessly.
They will - imho - all need to take a deep breath, and look way up/out in $cale to see the
structure and architects of the massive ponzi that has debilitated a whole planet via debt,
and cancel/walk away from it. The fish is the last to discover water. Let the rentier
universe implode. People need real money.
A lot of attention should be devoted to the techniques, authors and motives of the social
engineering that facilitated this debilitation. People need real culture.
The populism/nationalism heading towards (hopefully massive) decentralization we are now
starting to see (so reviled by all DS/NWO MSM, camp-followers/useful idiots) is the
beginning. People need real, local, democratic politics ASAP.
It was never truly an "American" empire, just as the British Empire was never truly
"British".
It was ran and blown up by Luciferian-Hazarian globalist parasites that made untold
profits on the way up, and down.
I would call it the Western Banking/Vatican/MIC Empire, with this empire of old being
represented by London as the financial center, the Vatican/Rome as the Spiritual/Religous
center, and Washington, D.C. as the Military center; and now the facade is cracking.
During the 20th century it successfully kicked off two world wars, spread its version of
globalization (and communism) benefiting the banksters the most (Bretton-Woods), installed a
debt-based fiat currency reserve system (globally), and more.
Now they're trying to do the same thing with China, all the while cut the US at it's
knees, and inundate Western Europe with the Muslim hordes they purposely destablized with
manufactured Middle Eastern wars. (China's trying to play both sides, btw)
Then kick off a possible WWIII, and the aftermath will have whomever's left begging for a
"peaceful" NWO, on any condition.
The losers in this scenario have been, and will be the vast majority of humanity,
regardless of nationality; unless a drastic change is made to the global financial/governance
system as a whole; and it won't be pretty but it will be worth it. How that looks, I truly
don't know.
I'm sure it gets more complex with various factions at the upper echelons, but that's my
summary in a nutshell....
Another of countless articles on the Hedge where all the symptoms are laid out in gruesome
detail while conveniently not stating who's behind the disintegration of the country.
"We are the schizophrenic nation, bound by no societal norms, constrained by no
religion, with no shared sense of history, myth, language, art, philosophy, music, or
culture, rushing toward an uncertain future fueled by nothing more than easy money, hubris,
and sheer momentum."
This is precisely what the (((nation wreckers))) have done throughout history. The
miscegenation of races and cultures, the breaking down of morals & religion (replaced by
a worship of money and Mammon), the erasure of the indigenous peoples' history and heritage,
a bastardization of language and philosophy, and debasement of all art and music... These are
but a few of the techniques employed by the parasitic entity. Once the cattle are adequately
milked, only slaughter remains for them before the butchers move on to their next host.
America WAS once a great idea, founded on white Christian ethics. Our Founders had a "no
foreign entanglements" mentality. No, it wasn't perfect, but it worked and our people
prospered. The sickness began in earnest when the eternal contagion was allowed free access
into our societal body in the 1880s. Like syphilis, its insidious influence has slowly eaten
away at our bodies and souls to the present point of insanity.
Bob... it's late and I must retire. However, I felt I owe you some sort of rebuttal.
I must admit, your vernacular leaves me somewhat puzzled and at a loss as to form any
cohesive and concise reply.
My references to Christendom were generalities. One can always find exceptions to any
definitive statement where weak humankind are concerned.
Suffice it to say that the European Christian peoples who inhabited this continent in the
18th & 19th Centuries were heartier and humbler folk than those alive today. "Generally"
speaking... they were God-fearing... guided by an ethos of humility and respect... divorce
was unheard of... children had a mother AND a father present... music and other communal
entertainments were wholesome... they had a pride in the forebearers' accomplishments... they
were taught a sound understanding of the 3 "R"'s... etc, etc...
"Generally" speaking... ALL of the above-mentioned attributes are absent today in a
majority of our citizenry. Think about that. Before (((they))) poisoned our reputable
wellspring, people were FAR better off.
So, yes... Christians had Inquisitions, Crusades, Wars, Conquests, etc... but, they also
had a value system which served as the basis for far-greater deeds, art, architecture and
civilization. Put on a scale, I'd say their philosophy has given the world far more "good"
than "bad". Only my humble opinion.
The social engineering - the cultural Marxism and other gambits used by the Parasite -
merits much (very public) attention to its goals, authors and techniques.
For the time being, the nation is involved in the uncivil war.
The geographical boundaries although somewhat still existing are not, nor ever will be, as
before, so clearly defined. The writer himself made this point. A fractured nation of special
interests with their various greviances sprinkled (forgive the pun) liberally throughout
every state, city, town, village, Berg, family or more accurately what is left of the family
.
Lies, corruption, distraction at every turn, and I would say a great majority are
oblivious to the primary threats and the larger games afoot.
A population ripe for continued abuse and exploitation, as they are well fed , well
entertained, and as Mr. Roberts is fond of pointing out, largely overcome by insouciance ...
devil take the hindmost ..
No it will end or begin in with some cataclysmic event, an event so great, that not even
the greatest liars and deceivers that the world has ever known will be able to cover up the
event, thus all doubt shall be removed at once, and all former lofty considerations of party
affiliation, social status, education , health care, corrupt government and money systems ,
shall seem like quaint and pleasant abstract discussions of the more innocent time.
"... The great false front of the financial markets resumes falling over into the November election. ..."
"... The rubble from all that buries whatever is left of the automobile business and the housing market. The smoldering aftermath will be described as the start of a long-overdue recession -- but it will actually be something a lot worse, with no end in sight. ..."
"... Complicating matters this time will be the chaos unleashed in politics and governing when the long-running "Russia collusion" melodrama boomerangs into a raft of indictments against the cast of characters in the Intel Community and Department of Justice AND the Democratic National Committee, and perhaps even including the Party's last standard bearer, HRC, for ginning up the Russia Collusion matter in the first place as an exercise in sedition. The wheels of the law turn slowly, but they'll turn even while financial markets tumble. ..."
Looks like somebody threw a dead cat onto Wall Street's luge run overnight to temporarily
halt the rather ugly 2000 point slide in the Dow Jones Industrial Average - and plenty of
freefall in other indices, including markets in other countries. A Friday pause in the
financial carnage will give the hedge funders a chance to plant "for sale" signs along their
Hamptons driveways, but who might the buyers be? Hedge funders from another planet, perhaps?
You can hope. And while you're at it, how do you spell liquidity problem?
Welcome to the convergence zone of the long emergency, where Murphy's law meets the law of
unintended consequences and the law of diminishing returns, the Three Amigos of collapse.
Here's where being "woke" finally starts to mean something. Namely, that there are more
important things in the world than sexual hysteria . Like, for instance, your falling standard
of living (and that of everyone else around you).
The meet-up between Kanye West and President D.J. Trump was an even richer metaphor for the
situation: two self-styled "geniuses" preening for the cameras in the Oval Office, like kids in
a sandbox, without a single intelligible idea emerging from the play-date, and embarrassed
grownups all standing 'round pretending it was a Great Moment in History. You had to wonder how
much of Kanye's bazillion dollar fortune was stashed in the burning house of FAANG stocks.
Maybe that flipped his bipolar toggle. Or was he even paying attention to the market action
through all the mugging and hugging? (He did have his phone in hand.) Meanwhile, Mr. Trump
seemed to be squirming through the episode behind his mighty Resolute desk as if he had "woke"
to the realization that ownership of a bursting epic global financial bubble was not exactly
"winning."
If I were President, I'd declare Oct 12 Greater Fool Day. (Nobody likes Christopher Columbus
anymore, that genocidal monster of dead white male privilege.) The futures were zooming as I
write in the early morning, a last roundup for suckers at the OD corral, begging the question:
who will show up on Monday. Nobody, I predict. And then what?
The great false front of the financial markets resumes falling over into the November
election.
The rubble from all that buries whatever is left of the automobile business and the housing
market. The smoldering aftermath will be described as the start of a long-overdue recession --
but it will actually be something a lot worse, with no end in sight.
The Democratic Party might not be nimble enough to capitalize on the sudden disappearance of
capital. Their only hope to date has been to capture the vote of every female in America, to
otherwise augment their constituency of inflamed and aggrieved victims of unsubstantiated
injustices. It's been fun playing those cards, and the Party might not even know how to play a
different game at this point. Democratic politicians may also be among the one-percenters who
watch their net worth go up in a vapor in a market collapse, leaving them too numb to act. The
last time something like this happened, in the fall of 2008, candidate Barack Obama barely knew
what to say about the fall of Lehman Brothers and the ensuing cascade of misery - though
unbeknownst to the voters, he was already a hostage of Wall Street.
Complicating matters this time will be the chaos unleashed in politics and governing when
the long-running "Russia collusion" melodrama boomerangs into a raft of indictments against the
cast of characters in the Intel Community and Department of Justice AND the Democratic National
Committee, and perhaps even including the Party's last standard bearer, HRC, for ginning up the
Russia Collusion matter in the first place as an exercise in sedition. The wheels of the law
turn slowly, but they'll turn even while financial markets tumble.
And the threat to order
might be so great that an unprecedented "emergency" has to be declared, with soldiers in the
streets of Washington, as was sadly the case in 1861, the first time the country turned itself
upside down.
New Tucker book condemns both neoliberalism and neocon foreign policy
Notable quotes:
"... Tucker states that the USA's neoliberal elite acquired control of a massive chunk of the country's wealth. And then successfully insulated themselves from the hoi polloi. They send their children to the Ivy League universities, live in enclosed compounds with security guards, travel in helicopters, etc. Kind of like French aristocracy on a new level ("Let them eat cakes"). "There's nothing more infuriating to a ruling class than contrary opinions. They're inconvenient and annoying. They're evidence of an ungrateful population... Above all, they constitute a threat to your authority." (insert sarcasm) ..."
I think the US society is entering a deep, sustained political crisis and it is unclear
what can bring us back from it other then the collapse, USSR-style. The USA slide into
corporate socialism (which might be viewed as a flavor of neofascism) can't be disputed.
Looks like all democracies are unstable and prone to self-destruction. In modern America,
the elite do not care about lower 80% of the population, and is over-engaged in cynical
identity politics, race and gender-mongering. Anything to win votes.
MSM is still cheering on military misadventures that kill thousands of Americans,
impoverish millions, and cost trillions. Congress looks even worse. Republican House leader
Paul Ryan looks like 100% pure bought-and-paid-for tool of multinational corporations...
The scary thing for me is that the USA national problems are somewhat similar to the ones
that the USSR experienced before the collapse. At least the level of degeneration of
political elite of both parties (which in reality is a single party) is.
The only positive things is that there is viable alternative to neoliberalism on the
horizon. But that does not mean that we can't experience 1930th on a new level again. Now
several European countries such as Poland and Ukraine are already ruled by far right
nationalist parties. Brazil is probably the next. So this or military rule in the USA is not
out of question.
Ship of Fools is what the US empire and the US society looks like now. And that's not
funny. Look at <a
href="https://www.amazon.com/Ship-Fools-Selfish-Bringing-Revolution-ebook/dp/B071FFRJ48">"Ship
of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of
Revolution"</a> by Tucker Carlson hits the mark when he says that the career
politicians and other elites in this country have put the USA on a path of
self-destruction.
Some other factors are also in play: one is that a country with 320 million population
can't be governed by the same methods as a country of 76 million (1900). End of cheap oil is
near and probably will occur within the next 50 years or so. Which means the end of
neoliberalism as we know it.
Tucker states that the USA's neoliberal elite acquired control of a massive chunk of the
country's wealth. And then successfully insulated themselves from the hoi polloi. They send
their children to the Ivy League universities, live in enclosed compounds with security
guards, travel in helicopters, etc. Kind of like French aristocracy on a new level ("Let them
eat cakes"). "There's nothing more infuriating to a ruling class than contrary opinions.
They're inconvenient and annoying. They're evidence of an ungrateful population... Above all,
they constitute a threat to your authority." (insert sarcasm)
Donald Trump was in many ways an unappealing figure. He never hid that. Voters knew it.
They just concluded that the options were worse -- and not just Hillary Clinton and the
Democratic Party, but the Bush family and their donors and the entire Republican
leadership, along with the hedge fund managers and media luminaries and corporate
executives and Hollywood tastemakers and think tank geniuses and everyone else who created
the world as it was in the fall of 2016: the people in charge. Trump might be vulgar and
ignorant, but he wasn't responsible for the many disasters America's leaders created .
There was also the possibility that Trump might listen. At times he seemed interested in
what voters thought. The people in charge demonstrably weren't. Virtually none of their
core beliefs had majority support from the population they governed .Beginning on election
night, they explained away their loss with theories as pat and implausible as a summer
action movie: Trump won because fake news tricked simple minded voters. Trump won because
Russian agents "hacked" the election. Trump won because mouth-breathers in the provinces
were mesmerized by his gold jet and shiny cuff links.
From a reader review:
The New [Neoliberal] Elite speaks: "The Middle Class are losers and they have made bad
choices, they haven't worked as hard as the New Elite have, they haven't gone to SAT Prep
or LSAT prep so they lose, we win. We are the Elite and we know better than you because we
got high SAT scores.
Do we have experience? Uh....well...no, few of us have been in the military, pulled KP,
shot an M-16.... because we are better than that. Like they say only the losers go in the
military. We in the New Elite have little empirical knowledge but we can recognize patterns
very quickly."
Just look at Haley behavior in the UN and Trump trade wars and many things became more
clear. the bet is on destruction of existing international institutions in order to save the
USA elite. A the same time Trump trade wars threaten the neoliberal order so this might well
be a path to the USA self-destruction.
On Capital hill rancor, a lack of civility and derisive descriptions are everywhere.
Respect has gone out the window. Left and right wings of a single neoliberal party (much like
CPSU was in the USSR) behave like drunk schoolchildren. Level of pettiness is simply
amazing.
"... Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their worldview. ..."
"... This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of this problem." ..."
"... We spent that time writing academic papers and publishing them in respected peer-reviewed journals associated with fields of scholarship loosely known as "cultural studies" or "identity studies" (for example, gender studies) or "critical theory" because it is rooted in that postmodern brand of "theory" which arose in the late sixties. ..."
Three scholars wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous
conclusions.
Harvard University's Yascha Mounk writing for The Atlantic:
"Over the past 12 months, three scholars -- James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter
Boghossian -- wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous
conclusions, and tried to get them placed in high-profile journals in fields including gender
studies, queer studies, and fat studies. Their success rate was remarkable
Sokal Squared doesn't just expose the low standards of the journals that publish this kind of
dreck, though. It also demonstrates the extent to which many of them are willing to license
discrimination if it serves ostensibly progressive goals.
This tendency becomes most evident in an article that advocates extreme measures to
redress the "privilege" of white students.
Exhorting college professors to enact forms of "experiential reparations," the paper
suggests telling privileged students to stay silent, or even BINDING THEM TO THE FLOOR IN
CHAINS
If students protest, educators are told to "take considerable care not to validate
privilege, sympathize with, or reinforce it and in so doing, recenter the needs of privileged
groups at the expense of marginalized ones. The reactionary verbal protestations of those who
oppose the progressive stack are verbal behaviors and defensive mechanisms that mask the
fragility inherent to those inculcated in privilege."
In an article for Areo magazine, the authors of the hoax explain their motivation:
"Something has gone wrong in the university -- especially in certain fields within the
humanities.
Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances
has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars
increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their
worldview.
This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has
been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the
three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of
this problem."
We spent that time writing academic papers and publishing them in respected
peer-reviewed journals associated with fields of scholarship loosely known as "cultural
studies" or "identity studies" (for example, gender studies) or "critical theory" because it
is rooted in that postmodern brand of "theory" which arose in the late sixties.
As a result of this work, we have come to call these fields "grievance studies" in
shorthand because of their common goal of problematizing aspects of culture in minute detail
in order to attempt diagnoses of power imbalances and oppression rooted in identity.
We undertook this project to study, understand, and expose the reality of grievance
studies, which is corrupting academic research.
Because open, good-faith conversation around topics of identity such as gender, race, and
sexuality (and the scholarship that works with them) is nearly impossible, our aim has been
to reboot these conversations.''
To read more, see Areo magazine + "academic grievance studies and the corruption of
scholarship"
Also telling... nobody from her family (mother, father, brother) has come forward to
support her. Only her husband's family. They likely know she is making it up as it relates to
Kavanaugh. They know who she is.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
That's actually false. However, the muted support from her father is likely due his not
wanting to be ostracized from his upper-crust old boys golf club.
....and the biggest indications of fraud here are 4 go fund me accounts now raising over
$2M for CBF. Professional lying to advance a political agenda is a good gig if you can get it
now days.
opport.knocks , 1 day ago
Y'all are being distracted and played, as usual, I am sad to say...
The judge Napolitano video at the end should have been played to Congress.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Yup, this man is not a friend of liberty, or justice.
IridiumRebel , 1 day ago
His *** is rethinking it now
istt , 1 day ago
"Kavanaugh claimed that putting a GPS tracking device on a person's car without first
obtaining a warrant was just fine because it didn't constitute a "search" as defined by the
Fourth Amendment."
I like him more now that I have read this article. Police should be able to legally track
known or suspected drug dealers. You got a problem with that? I suppose you're outraged over
our treatment of MS-13 as well?
opport.knocks , 1 day ago
Yes, I have a problem with that. Police must have enough prior evidence to get a warrant
to put a device on anyone's property (car, phone, email account, internet router) - any
private property is protected by the 4th.
Once they convince a judge of probable cause and get the warrant, they can plant the
tracking device. Most cops are power hungry, petty, vindictive, control freaks, with too much
time on their hands - one tried to make my life hell simply because I cut him off in
traffic.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
The hypocrisy of ZH posters in favor of this douche is unreal. Where is the libertarian
outrage?
opport.knocks , 1 day ago
I think most libertarians have left ZH and this is a predominantly Republican partisan
site now. The internet is quickly becoming a bunch of echo chambers for like minded people,
with trolls appearing from time to time to fan flames if interest and eyeballs starts to
wane. We are lucky if one post out of 50 has any insight or real information.
11b40 , 1 day ago
Once you start down this slippery slope, the next step down is easy.
spieslikeus , 1 day ago
Eye opening, thanks for that. Appoint Judge Napolitano!
opport.knocks , 1 day ago
It would be nice to have a token libertarian voice on the court. Kavanaugh is not only a
statist, but a deep statist.
Golden Phoenix , 1 day ago
If taken completely at her word the gist of her story is someone touched the outside of
her clothes. Prison for tailors! They are all rapists!
Bricker , 1 day ago
Ford says she ran from the house, Question, how did you get home? Answer, I don't
remember.
No Time for Fishing , 1 day ago
No one followed her out. No one said where are you going.
She is outside the house, no car, no phone, maybe clicked her heals and was magically at
home, worked for Dorthy.
Walked six miles home but just doesn't remember that? could be.
Knocked on a neighbors door to ask to use the phone and had someone pick her up but
doesn't remember that? could be.
Walked a few blocks to a pay phone and with the quarter she had in her bathing suit called
someone to pick her up, waited for them, didn't tell them what happened and then they drove
her home, just doesn't remember it? could be.
When she ran from the house did she not leave her purse or bag behind? Did she ever get it
back? Did her girlfriend never ask why she left?
Maybe I should just believe her......
Bastiat , 1 day ago
She ran all the way, got home in 35'32" -- she would have been a track star but the coach
looked at her *** at the team tryouts.
Benjamin123 , 1 day ago
Auntie delivers
The Swamp Got Trump , 1 day ago
Ford is a lunatic and a liar.
onebytwo , 1 day ago
so she does not remember how she got to the party or how she left the party but she
suggested she narrowed down the year because she knew she did not drive to the party since
she could not drive yet so she must have been 15.
I beg your pardon!
bh2 , 1 day ago
So does anyone recall Comey giving Clinton a free pass despite her many deliberate and
clear violations of US security laws on the basis that no reasonable prosecutor would take
action against her?
nope-1004 , 1 day ago
Dr. Fraud was a planned hit. Her social media presence was methodically deleted over the
last few months. There is nothing about her anywhere.... it's almost as if her name is fake
too.
Heard on 4chan that her and her husband have a big interest at the place she used to work,
Corcept Therapeutics. Apparently Corcept has developed a new abortion drug and have invested
a ton in R&D.
As always, follow the money.......
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
yeah, yeah. you do realize that her father plays golf with Kav's dad at their local
country club.
don't forget your tinfoil hat your way out, nutjob.
nope-1004 , 1 day ago
And you do realize that Kav's mother was the judge that presided over Dr. Frauds' parents
home foreclosure?
Lots of motives here.
Thanks for chiming in so we can all get to he truth.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Presiding over a foreclosure is not a matter of guilt or innocence, it's a strictly
administrative task. The bank is the one foreclosing, you dolt.
Garciathinksso , 1 day ago
another unhinged, faux compassionate, rude leftist
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Another braindead gaslighting troglodyte
11b40 , 1 day ago
Then what is the judge for?
istt , 1 day ago
Turns out Ford is not even a psychologist. Some of the stupidest people I know carry PhD
titles because they are perpetual students. This just starkly shows the difference between
the two worlds people live in, if they can find Ford credible. She is the face of left wing
hysteria and partisanship.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
And angry-boy Kavanaughty is the perfect reflection of unhinged conspi-racist GOP.
istt , 1 day ago
Keep repeating the mantras, losers. I'm sure there are many single mom's out there who
made lousy decisions, who hate their lives, who are willing to buy your whole story. YOU
resonate with them. But they are not here so get lost.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
I crap bigger than you.
Got The Wrong No , 1 day ago
That's because you are Crap
Slaytheist , 1 day ago
Real men that live lives of principal and truth, get angry when women (inclues numen like
you) lie like children to get their way.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
So pretty much all of Kavanaugh's old cronies turn out to be degenerate drunkard
misogynist ultra-right-wing conspiracy theorist toolbags and somehow Kavanaugh himself is Mr.
Squeaky Clean? <cough>********<cough>
nope-1004 , 1 day ago
No, they were all drunken college kids.
So have you lefties changed it and would like to charge him for partying?
lmao.....
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Lol, drunked college kids? More like degenerate a-holes. Troll harder.
IridiumRebel , 1 day ago
Yes. Troll harder.
Garciathinksso , 1 day ago
your being spoon fed a narrative by the msm like rice pudding to a gay cowboy, you make me
sick
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
Keep your homoerotic fantasies to yourself, please.
Garciathinksso , 1 day ago
I thought I was being kind with the gay cowboy remark
istt , 1 day ago
Get the **** out of here, wingnut. Switch back to your CNN. We don't need your ilk here,
loser.
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
I have been here farrrrr long than the vast majority of you pikers. Long enough to recall
what ZH was intended to be for, before it became the cesspool it is today, infested with
russian trolls, nazi-fascist thugs, lunatic fringe d-bags spouting off like they know
anything about anything. So GET the F OFF MY LAWN, punk.
istt , 1 day ago
Anyone who finds this woman and her story credible need their head examined. They are
incapable of critical reasoning.
A political hit job and the stupid, ignoramus Ford was willing to do the hit. She should
be in jail for this disgraceful action.
onebytwo , 1 day ago
So she was communicating on Whatsup with the Washington Post on JULY 6th! How is that
consistent with wanting this whole story to be confidential?
She knew the person she was in contact with since she admitted she was the same journalist
who wrote the article in September. In whatsup you know each other's phone numbers so the
journalist knew her identity from the very beginning. Stop lying about the anonymous tip line
!
Let's call this for what it is: a conspiracy to hijack a supreme court nomination and Mrs
Blasio Ford, the Washington Post, democratic parties operatives (including senator
Fienstein's staff or the senator herself and the Kats legal firm) were co-conspirators).
onwisconsinbadger , 1 day ago
Hired by Pukes, no surprise here.
cheech_wizard , 1 day ago
So elections have consequences, right?
I'll bet you didn't miss a single one of Hillary's campaign events in Wisconsin, did
you?
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
I really don't get it, there are many qualified conservative judges who would do a much
better job on SCOTUS and not damage the court's honor and credibility. Why Kavanaugh?
onwisconsinbadger , 1 day ago
Because he is a political heck and Drumpf likes it that way.
Bricker , 1 day ago
Ford doesnt remember much, except when it matters. She doesnt know exactly when she was
raped or where she claims to be raped, but remembers seeing Mark Judge in a Safeway exactly 8
weeks later.
Hell I remember where I was when the space shuttle blew up in the 80s, I remember where I
was and who I was with when Mt St Helens blew her top in 1980.
People will always remember notable events, PERIOD!
Here is a classic, if you believe her story, I have a bridge for sale
Endgame Napoleon , 1 day ago
Back when the Roy Moore thing was keeping MSM ratings up, I, a person in Dr. Ford's age
group, recalled a 100% harmless event from my 16th year. The reason it sprang to mind is: it
echoed things they were accusing him of.
Accusers said he was in the mall, flirting with girls in their late teens and in other
commercial venues, chatting it up girls in that age group.
Although this event had not crossed my mind in years -- so un-traumatic was it -- I
remembered in much greater detail than Ford the specificities of this harmless event.
I was working at a locally owned steakhouse as a hostess, a glorified and very bored door
opener. I was wearing a pink, medium-warm-gray and light-warm-gray, striped dress (ugh, the
Eighties).
After work, I decided to stop at a local grocery store, and I felt pleased that a
candidate for office who later won handed me his card, trying to convince me to vote for him.
He also mildly flirted with me, not knowing how old I was, and I did not tell him my age,
enjoying the feeling of being older, sophisticated and attractive enough to get his
attention.
He put his phone number on the card, not that anything happened as a result. I knew that I
would not be allowed to go out with this man who really wasn't that much older than me,
anyway, probably about a decade older.
If this man ever ran for another office, or was appointed to a high office, I could call
this sexual assault, I guess, in this insane world. But I would never do that, nor would
almost any woman that I have met.
There must be something in the water, producing more barracudas with a mission to
criminalize things that earlier generations would have called flirting.
learnofjesuits , 1 day ago
was she on valium for funeral and polygraph test ?
this explains why test was done after funeral and her passing this test,
FBI must check this
RighteousRampage , 1 day ago
And while they're at it, they should also check all the stories from Yale classmates who
can attest to the fact that Kavanaugh was often spotted late at night stumbling and slurring
his words, and sometimes aggressively starting sh*t.
learnofjesuits , 1 day ago
inconsequential, nothing will come out of this,
opposite of her being on drugs for polygraph test, this just ends her story
"... I still find it incredible that this video by Samuelson essentially acknowledging that a key part of his multi-decade "core" textbook is religion, not science, is not more widely shared. ..."
Steve Keen of Kingston University, London gives an important high-level talk on the
considerable shortcomings of mainstream economics. Keen argues that a major objective of the
discipline is to justify the virtues of markets, which in turn leads them to adopt a strongly
ideological posture along with highly simplified models and narrow mathematical approaches to
reach conclusions that they find acceptable.
Keen has many informative asides, like the introductory level texts he used in the 1970s
were more advanced than many graduate level guides.
I still find it incredible that this video by Samuelson essentially acknowledging that a
key part of his multi-decade "core" textbook is religion, not science, is not more widely
shared.
OK the person who constructed the complete youtube vid has typos etc and editing
probably didn't help the cause. but still
"... Luckily there are still groups of our species that don't live totally controlled by the Western way and the cancer it represents to humanity. They on the outside and "us" on the inside are trying our hardest to shine lights on all the moving parts in hopes that humanity can throw off the shackles of ignorance about private/public finance. ..."
Which is the cohort of voters who allegedly are leaning toward voting Republican in the
mid-terms but who allegedly would refrain if Trump accepted Rosenstein's resignation? And
which is the cohort not already motivated to turn out to vote Democrat but who allegedly
would be motivated by a Rosenstein resignation? Is there real data on these?
I think if I had been a 2016 Trump voter I'd be feeling pretty disappointed about how he's
unable to enforce the most basic discipline and loyalty even among his closest administration
members, and this Rosenstein episode would be yet another egregious example.
If the Republicans do lose either/both houses, the main reason will be that for once
they've taken on the normal Democrat role of being confused and feckless about what they want
to do (they can't bring themselves to whole-heartedly get behind Trump; but a major
Republican strength has been how they normally do pull together an present a united front).
And Trump himself, in his inability to control his own immediate administration, also gives
an example of this fecklessness.
@ Circe who is writing that any who like any of what Trump is doing must be Zionists.
Get a grip. I didn't vote for Trump but favored him over Clinton II, the war criminal.
Trump represents more clearly the face of the ugly beast of debauched patriarchy, lying,
misogyny, bullying and monotheistic "everybody else is goyim" values. Trump very clearly
represents the folks behind the curtain of the Western private finance led "culture". He and
they are both poor representations of our species who are in power because of heredity and
controlled ignorance over the private finance jackboot on the lifeblood of the species.
Luckily there are still groups of our species that don't live totally controlled by
the Western way and the cancer it represents to humanity. They on the outside and "us" on the
inside are trying our hardest to shine lights on all the moving parts in hopes that humanity
can throw off the shackles of ignorance about private/public finance.
I am taking a beginning astronomy class and just learned that it took the monotheistic
religions 600 years to accept the science of Galileo Galilei. We could stand to evolve a bit
faster as we are about to have our proverbial asses handed to us in the form of extinction,
IMO.
"... But strangely most of us are much readier to concede the corrupting influence of the relatively small power of individuals than we are the rottenness of vastly more powerful institutions and structures. We blame the school teacher or the politician for abusing his or her power, while showing a reluctance to do the same about either the education or political systems in which they have to operate. ..."
"... It is relatively easy to understand that your line manager is abusing his power, because he has so little of it. His power is visible to you because it relates only to you and the small group of people around you ..."
"... It is a little harder, but not too difficult, to identify the abusive policies of your firm – the low pay, cuts in overtime, attacks on union representation ..."
"... It is more difficult to see the corrupt power of large institutions, aside occasionally from the corruption of senior figures within those institutions, such as a Robert Maxwell or a Richard Nixon ..."
"... But it is all but impossible to appreciate the corrupt nature of the entire system. And the reason is right there in those aphorisms: absolute power depends on absolute control over knowledge, which in turn necessitates absolute corruption. If that were not the case, we wouldn't be dealing with serious power – as should be obvious, if we pause to think about it ..."
"... The current neoliberal elite who effectively rule the planet have reached as close to absolute power as any elite in human history. And because they have near-absolute power, they have a near-absolute control of the official narratives about our societies and our "enemies", those who stand in their way to global domination ..."
"... What is clear, however, is that the British intelligence services have been feeding the British corporate media a self-serving, drip-drip narrative from the outset – and that the media have shown precisely no interest at any point in testing any part of this narrative or even questioning it. They have been entirely passive, which means that we their readers have been entirely passive too ..."
"... Journalists typically have a passive relationship to power, in stark contrast to their image as tenacious watchdog. But more fundamental than control over narrative is the ideology that guides these narratives. Ideology ensures the power-system is invisible not only to us, those who are abused and exploited by it, but also to those who benefit from it. ..."
"... It is precisely because power resides in structures and ideology, rather than individuals, that it is so hard to see. And the power-structures themselves are made yet more difficult to identify because the narratives created about our societies are designed to conceal those structures and ideology – where real power resides – by focusing instead on individuals ..."
"... Before neoliberalism there were other systems of rule. There was, for example, feudalism that appropriated a communal resource – land – exclusively for an aristocracy. It exploited the masses by forcing them to toil on the land for a pittance to generate the wealth that supported castles, a clergy, manor houses, art collections and armies. For several centuries the power of this tiny elite went largely unquestioned ..."
"... Neoliberalism, late-stage capitalism, plutocratic rule by corporations – whatever you wish to call it – has allowed a tiny elite to stash away more wealth and accrue more power than any feudal monarch could ever have dreamt of. And because of the global reach of this elite, its corruption is more endemic, more complete, more destructive than any ever known to mankind ..."
"... A foreign policy elite can destroy the world several times over with nuclear weapons. A globalised corporate elite is filling the oceans with the debris from our consumption, and chopping down the forest-lungs of our planet for palm-oil plantations so we can satisfy our craving for biscuits and cake. And our media and intelligence services are jointly crafting a narrative of bogeymen and James Bond villains – both in Hollywood movies, and in our news programmes – to make us fearful and pliable ..."
"... The system – whether feudalism, capitalism, neoliberalism – emerges out of the real-world circumstances of those seeking power most ruthlessly. In a time when the key resource was land, a class emerged justifying why it should have exclusive rights to control that land and the labour needed to make it productive. When industrial processes developed, a class emerged demanding that it had proprietary rights to those processes and to the labour needed to make them productive. ..."
"... In these situations, we need to draw on something like Darwin's evolutionary "survival of the fittest" principle. Those few who are most hungry for power, those with least empathy, will rise to the top of the pyramid, finding themselves best-placed to exploit the people below. They will rationalise this exploitation as a divine right, or as evidence of their inherently superior skills, or as proof of the efficiency of the market. ..."
"... And below them, like the layers of ball bearings, will be those who can help them maintain and expand their power: those who have the skills, education and socialisation to increase profits and sell brands. ..."
"... None of this should surprise us either. Because power – not just the people in the system, but the system itself – will use whatever tools it has to protect itself. It is easier to deride critics as unhinged, especially when you control the media, the politicians and the education system, than it is to provide a counter-argument. ..."
"... so neoliberalism is driven not by ethics but the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of the planet. ..."
"... The only truth we can know is that the western power-elite is determined to finish the task of making its power fully global, expanding it from near-absolute to absolute. It cares nothing for you or your grand-children. It is a cold-calculating system, not a friend or neighbour. It lives for the instant gratification of wealth accumulation, not concern about the planet's fate tomorrow. ..."
I rarely tell readers what to believe. Rather I try to indicate why it might be wise to
distrust, at least without very good evidence, what those in power tell us we should
believe.
We have well-known sayings about power: "Knowledge is power", and "Power tends to corrupt,
while absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." These aphorisms resonate because they say
something true about how we experience the world. People who have power – even very
limited power they hold on licence from someone else – tend to abuse it, sometimes subtly
and unconsciously, and sometimes overtly and wilfully.
If we are reasonably self-aware, we can sense the tendency in ourselves to exploit to our
advantage whatever power we enjoy, whether it is in our dealings with a spouse, our children, a
friend, an employee, or just by the general use of our status to get ahead.
This isn't usually done maliciously or even consciously. By definition, the hardest thing to
recognise are our own psychological, emotional and mental blind spots – and the biggest,
at least for those born with class, gender or race privileges, is realising that these too are
forms of power.
Nonetheless, they are all minor forms of power compared to the power wielded collectively by
the structures that dominate our societies: the financial sector, the corporations, the media,
the political class, and the security services.
But strangely most of us are much readier to concede the corrupting influence of the
relatively small power of individuals than we are the rottenness of vastly more powerful
institutions and structures. We blame the school teacher or the politician for abusing his or
her power, while showing a reluctance to do the same about either the education or political
systems in which they have to operate.
Similarly, we are happier identifying the excessive personal power of a Rupert Murdoch than
we are the immense power of the corporate empire behind him and on which his personal wealth
and success depend.
And beyond this, we struggle most of all to detect the structural and ideological framework
underpinning or cohering all these discrete examples of power.
Narrative control
It is relatively easy to understand that your line manager is abusing his power, because he
has so little of it. His power is visible to you because it relates only to you and the small
group of people around you.
It is a little harder, but not too difficult, to identify the abusive policies of your firm
– the low pay, cuts in overtime, attacks on union representation.
It is more difficult to see the corrupt power of large institutions, aside occasionally from
the corruption of senior figures within those institutions, such as a Robert Maxwell or a
Richard Nixon.
But it is all but impossible to appreciate the corrupt nature of the entire system. And the
reason is right there in those aphorisms: absolute power depends on absolute control over
knowledge, which in turn necessitates absolute corruption. If that were not the case, we
wouldn't be dealing with serious power – as should be obvious, if we pause to think about
it.
Real power in our societies derives from that which is necessarily hard to see –
structures, ideology and narratives – not individuals. Any Murdoch or Trump can be
felled, though being loyal acolytes of the power-system they rarely are, should they threaten
the necessary maintenance of power by these interconnected institutions, these structures.
The current neoliberal elite who effectively rule the planet have reached as close to
absolute power as any elite in human history. And because they have near-absolute power, they
have a near-absolute control of the official narratives about our societies and our "enemies",
those who stand in their way to global domination.
No questions about Skripals
One needs only to look at the narrative about the two men, caught on CCTV cameras, who have
recently been accused by our political and media class of using a chemical agent to try to
murder Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia back in March.
I don't claim to know whether Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov work for the Russian
security services, or whether they were dispatched by Vladimir Putin on a mission to Salisbury
to kill the Skripals.
What is clear, however, is that the British intelligence services have been feeding the
British corporate media a self-serving, drip-drip narrative from the outset – and that
the media have shown precisely no interest at any point in testing any part of this narrative
or even questioning it. They have been entirely passive, which means that we their readers have
been entirely passive too.
That there are questions about the narrative to be raised is obvious if you turn away from
the compliant corporate media and seek out the views of an independent-minded, one-time insider
such as Craig Murray.
A former British ambassador, Murray is asking questions
that may prove to be pertinent or not. At this stage, when all we have to rely on is what the
intelligence services are selectively providing, these kinds of doubts should be driving the
inquiries of any serious journalist covering the story. But as is so often the case, not only
are these questions not being raised or investigated, but anyone like Murray who thinks
critically – who assumes that the powerful will seek to promote their interests and avoid
accountability – is instantly dismissed as a conspiracy theorist or in Putin's
pocket.
That is no meaningful kind of critique. Many of the questions that have been raised –
like why there are so many gaps in the CCTV record of the movements of both the Skripals and
the two assumed assassins – could be answered if there was an interest in doing so. The
evasion and the smears simply suggest that power intends to remain unaccountable, that it is
keeping itself concealed, that the narrative is more important than the truth.
And that is reason enough to move from questioning the narrative to distrusting it.
Ripples on a lake
Journalists typically have a passive relationship to power, in stark contrast to their image
as tenacious watchdog. But more fundamental than control over narrative is the ideology that
guides these narratives. Ideology ensures the power-system is invisible not only to us, those
who are abused and exploited by it, but also to those who benefit from it.
It is precisely because power resides in structures and ideology, rather than individuals,
that it is so hard to see. And the power-structures themselves are made yet more difficult to
identify because the narratives created about our societies are designed to conceal those
structures and ideology – where real power resides – by focusing instead on
individuals.
That is why our newspapers and TV shows are full of stories about personalities –
celebrities, royalty, criminals, politicians. They are made visible so we fail to notice the
ideological structures we live inside, which are supposed to remain invisible.
News and entertainment are the ripples on a lake, not the lake itself. But the ripples could
not exist without the lake that forms and shapes them.
Up against the screen
If this sounds like hyperbole, let's stand back from our particular ideological system
– neoliberalism – and consider earlier ideological systems in the hope that they
offer some perspective. At the moment, we are like someone standing right up against an IMAX
screen, so close that we cannot see that there is a screen or even guess that there is a
complete picture. All we see are moving colours and pixels. Maybe we can briefly infer a mouth,
the wheel of a vehicle, a gun.
Before neoliberalism there were other systems of rule. There was, for example, feudalism
that appropriated a communal resource – land – exclusively for an aristocracy. It
exploited the masses by forcing them to toil on the land for a pittance to generate the wealth
that supported castles, a clergy, manor houses, art collections and armies. For several
centuries the power of this tiny elite went largely unquestioned.
But then a class of entrepreneurs emerged, challenging the landed artistocracy with a new
means of industrialised production. They built factories and took advantage of scales of
economy that slightly widened the circle of privilege, creating a middle class. That elite, and
the middle-class that enjoyed crumbs from their master's table, lived off the exploitation of
children in work houses and the labour of a new urban poor in slum housing.
These eras were systematically corrupt, enabling the elites of those times to extend and
entrench their power. Each elite produced justifications to placate the masses who were being
exploited, to brainwash them into believing the system existed as part of a natural order or
even for their benefit. The aristocracy relied on a divine right of kings, the capitalist class
on the guiding hand of the free market and bogus claims of equality of opportunity.
In another hundred years, if we still exist as a species, our system will look no less
corrupt – probably more so – than its predecessors.
Neoliberalism, late-stage capitalism, plutocratic rule by corporations – whatever you
wish to call it – has allowed a tiny elite to stash away more wealth and accrue more
power than any feudal monarch could ever have dreamt of. And because of the global reach of
this elite, its corruption is more endemic, more complete, more destructive than any ever known
to mankind.
A foreign policy elite can destroy the world several times over with nuclear weapons. A
globalised corporate elite is filling the oceans with the debris from our consumption, and
chopping down the forest-lungs of our planet for palm-oil plantations so we can satisfy our
craving for biscuits and cake. And our media and intelligence services are jointly crafting a
narrative of bogeymen and James Bond villains – both in Hollywood movies, and in our news
programmes – to make us fearful and pliable.
Assumptions of inevitability
Most of us abuse our own small-power thoughtlessly, even self-righteously. We tell ourselves
that we gave the kids a "good spanking" because they were naughty, rather than because we
established with them early on a power relationship that confusingly taught them that the use
of force and coercion came with a parental stamp of approval.
Those in greater power, from minions in the media to executives of major corporations, are
no different. They are as incapable of questioning the ideology and the narrative – how
inevitable and "right" our neoliberal system is – as the rest of us. But they play a
vital part in maintaining and entrenching that system nonetheless.
David Cromwell and David Edwards of Media Lens have provided two analogies – in the
context of the media – that help explain how it is possible for individuals and groups to
assist and enforce systems of power without having any conscious intention to do so, and
without being aware that they are contributing to something harmful. Without, in short, being
aware that they are conspiring in the system.
When a shoal of fish instantly changes direction, it looks for all the world as though the
movement was synchronised by some guiding hand. Journalists – all trained and selected
for obedience by media all seeking to maximise profits within state-capitalist society
– tend to respond to events in the same way.
Place a square wooden framework on a flat surface and pour into it a stream of ball
bearings, marbles, or other round objects. Some of the balls may bounce out, but many will
form a layer within the wooden framework; others will then find a place atop this first
layer. In this way, the flow of ball bearings steadily builds new layers that inevitably
produce a pyramid-style shape. This experiment is used to demonstrate how near-perfect
crystalline structures such as snowflakes arise in nature without conscious design.
The system – whether feudalism, capitalism, neoliberalism – emerges out of the
real-world circumstances of those seeking power most ruthlessly. In a time when the key
resource was land, a class emerged justifying why it should have exclusive rights to control
that land and the labour needed to make it productive. When industrial processes developed, a
class emerged demanding that it had proprietary rights to those processes and to the labour
needed to make them productive.
Our place in the pyramid
In these situations, we need to draw on something like Darwin's evolutionary "survival of
the fittest" principle. Those few who are most hungry for power, those with least empathy, will
rise to the top of the pyramid, finding themselves best-placed to exploit the people below.
They will rationalise this exploitation as a divine right, or as evidence of their inherently
superior skills, or as proof of the efficiency of the market.
And below them, like the layers of ball bearings, will be those who can help them maintain
and expand their power: those who have the skills, education and socialisation to increase
profits and sell brands.
All of this should be obvious, even non-controversial. It fits what we experience of our
small-power lives. Does bigger power operate differently? After all, if those at the top of the
power-pyramid were not hungry for power, even psychopathic in its pursuit, if they were caring
and humane, worried primarily about the wellbeing of their workforce and the planet, they would
be social workers and environmental activists, not CEOs of media empires and arms
manufacturers.
And yet, base your political thinking on what should be truisms, articulate a worldview that
distrusts those with the most power because they are the most capable of – and committed
to – misusing it, and you will be derided. You will be called a conspiracy theorist,
dismissed as deluded. You will be accused of wearing a tinfoil hat, of sour grapes, of being
anti-American, a social warrior, paranoid, an Israel-hater or anti-semitic, pro-Putin,
pro-Assad, a Marxist.
None of this should surprise us either. Because power – not just the people in the
system, but the system itself – will use whatever tools it has to protect itself. It is
easier to deride critics as unhinged, especially when you control the media, the politicians
and the education system, than it is to provide a counter-argument.
In fact, it is vital to prevent any argument or real debate from taking place. Because the
moment we think about the arguments, weigh them, use our critical faculties, there is a real
danger that the scales will fall from our eyes. There is a real threat that we will move back
from the screen, and see the whole picture.
Can we see the complete picture of the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury; or the US election
that led to Trump being declared president; or the revolution in Ukraine; or the causes and
trajectory of fighting in Syria, and before it Libya and Iraq; or the campaign to discredit
Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party; or the true implications of the banking crisis a
decade ago?
Profit, not ethics
Just as a feudal elite was driven not by ethics but by the pursuit of power and wealth
through the control of land; just as early capitalists were driven not by ethics but by the
pursuit of power and wealth through the control of mechanisation; so neoliberalism is driven
not by ethics but the pursuit of power and wealth through the control of the planet.
The only truth we can know is that the western power-elite is determined to finish the task
of making its power fully global, expanding it from near-absolute to absolute. It cares nothing
for you or your grand-children. It is a cold-calculating system, not a friend or neighbour. It
lives for the instant gratification of wealth accumulation, not concern about the planet's fate
tomorrow.
And because of that it is structurally bound to undermine or discredit anyone, any group,
any state that stands in the way of achieving its absolute dominion.
If that is not the thought we hold uppermost in our minds as we listen to a politician, read
a newspaper, watch a film or TV show, absorb an ad, or engage on social media, then we are
sleepwalking into a future the most powerful, the most ruthless, the least caring have designed
for us.
Step back, and take a look at the whole screen. And decide whether this is really the future
you wish for your grand-children.
"All the leading economic indicators are great to healthy ... Homelessness is worse than I
have ever seen but I do not see any Latino or Asian homeless people. It is nearly 100% white
or African Americans. Most appear to be drugged out losers."
A perfect example of what b meant when he said that the only people suffering are the
poor. Meaning that nobody cares about them and, often because they are prevented from doing
so, they rarely vote. And when they do vote there aren't any candidates to vote for.
The last sentence just about sums neo-liberals up: most of the homeless are informed, are
'drugged out losers.'
So that's OK is it? Ever wonder why they are drugged out? Or what the rules were in the game
they lost?
The international working classes are racists. They are misogynists. Xenophobic transphobes.
They do not think the way we want them to. Some of them actually still believe in God. And they are
white supremacists. Anti-Semites. Gun-toting, Confederate-flag-flying rednecks. Most of them
have never even heard of terms like "intersectionality," "TERF," and so on.
They do not respect the corporate media. They think that news sources like the Washington
Post, The New York Times, The Guardian, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and so on, are basically propaganda
outlets for the global corporations and oligarchs who own them, and thus are essentially no
different from FOX, whose pundits they believe every word of.
Their minds are so twisted by racism and xenophobia that they can't understand how global
capitalism, the graduated phase-out of national sovereignty, the privatization of virtually
everything, the debt-enslavement of nearly everyone, and the replacement of their so-called
"cultures" with an ubiquitous, smiley-faced, gender-neutral, non-oppressive,
corporate-friendly, Disney simulation of culture are actually wonderfully progressive steps
forward on the road to a more peaceful, less offensive world.
Now this has been proved in numerous studies with all kinds of charts and graphs and so on.
And not only by the corporate statisticians, and the corporate media, and liberal think tanks.
Why, just this week, Mehdi Hasan, in an exasperated
jeremiad in the pages of The Intercept , that bastion of fearless, adversarial journalism
owned by billionaire Pierre Omidyar, proved, once again, that Donald Trump was elected because
PEOPLE ARE GODDAMN RACISTS!
There are a lot of folks out there talking recession in the near-term. Most of that derives
from history. Recession occurs every so often, or rather it used to.
It's really hard to have a decrease in GDP when you are running a deficit near a trillion
dollars. A trillion dollars is about 4.8% of GDP. If GDP grew by less than that then you have
some sort of word to invent to describe growth absent created money. (Not by the Fed, but also
not by capitalism). And there's a lot of cash being repatriated, and that damn sure hasn't
finished yet. So it's really hard to get a GDP decrease until all of that works through.
As has been noted before, the real danger in all of this is drawing attention to what
Bernanke did. When it is completely visible that money was created whimsically, and that the
Chinese have proven that you don't have to allow your currency to trade completely outside
government controls, then the system gets dicey.
The only thing stopping exporting country leadership from concluding that the oil is better
off underground for the grandchildren rather than being traded for pieces of paper with ink on
it -- the only thing preventing that conclusion is an array of advisors whose own personal
wealth would be endangered by such an exposure about money in general. They are the ones
whispering in the ears of their leadership, and their advice is not sourced in the best
interests of that country.
To a certain extent we could label all such advisors for all oil exporting countries as,
dare one say it, Deep State. Establishment political infrastructure in each country giving
advice sourced in their own well-being and not that of the country.
"... Rajan turned out to be a party pooper, questioning whether "advances" in the financial sector actually increased, rather than reduced, systemic risk . Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers called him a Luddite . " I felt like an early Christian who had wandered into a convention of half-starved lions ," he wrote. But though delivered in genteel academic lingo, his paper was powerful and prescient. ..."
"... "There has been a shift of risk from the formal banking system to the shadow financial system." He also told me the post-crisis reforms did not address central banks' role in creating asset bubbles through accommodative monetary policy, which he sees as the financial markets' biggest long-term challenge. ..."
"... 99% of all people should invest in themselves first. That means having no debt and also having a small company that you only put sweat equity into to make it work starting out as a side business and keeping it as a side business even if it grows bigger. That also means going to college and earning a money making degree that is in demand. ..."
"The ultimate thing that brings down financial markets is excess leverage So, you look
where's the big leverage, and right now I think it's in emerging markets."
Shilling is particularly worried about the $8 trillion in dollar-denominated
emerging-market corporate and sovereign debt, especially as the U.S. dollar rises along with
interest rates. "The problem is as the dollar increases," he said, "it gets tougher and
tougher for them to service [that debt] because it takes more and more of their local
currency to do so." Of that,
$249 billion must be repaid or refinanced through next year , Bloomberg reported.
... ... ...
That housing-related stocks "saw a parabolic run-up" in 2016-17, but in
January his index "peaked and now it's coming down hard." And this spells "bad news on the
housing market looking 12 months down the road."
But the biggest danger, Stack told me, is from low-quality corporate debt. Issuance of
corporate bonds has "gone from around $700 billion in 2008 to about two and a half times that
[today]."
And, he added, more and more of that debt is subprime . Uh-oh.
In 2005, he pointed out, companies issued five times as much high-quality as subprime
debt, but last year "we had as much subprime debt, poor quality-debt issued, as quality debt
on the corporate level," he said, warning "this is the kind of debt that does get defaulted
on dramatically in an economic downturn."
"Managers have greater incentive to take risk because the upside is significant, while the
downside is limited."
"Moreover, the linkages between markets, and between markets and institutions, are now more
pronounced. While this helps the system diversify across small shocks, it also exposes the
system to large systemic shocks "
"The financial risks that are being created by the system are indeed greater [potentially
creating] a greater (albeit still small) probability of a catastrophic meltdown."
What he says now:
"There has been a shift of risk from the formal banking system to the shadow financial
system." He also told me the post-crisis reforms did not address central banks' role in
creating asset bubbles through accommodative monetary policy, which he sees as the financial
markets' biggest long-term challenge.
"You get hooked on leverage. It's cheap, it's easy to refinance, so why not take more of it?
You get lulled into taking more leverage than perhaps you can handle."
And what might be coming:
Rajan also sees potential problems in U.S. corporate debt, particularly as rates rise, and
in emerging markets, though he thinks the current problems in Turkey and Argentina are "not
full-blown contagion."
"But are there accidents waiting to happen? Yes, there are."
What he says now:
"I think the choice of Europe is going to have to put [all the debt] on the balance sheet of
the European Central Bank. If they don't, then the euro zone breaks apart and we're going to
get a 50% valuation collapse."
"Greece...is a rounding error. Italy is not . And Brussels and Germany are going to have to
allow Italy to overshoot their persistent debt, and the ECB is going to have to buy that
debt."
"If it doesn't happen, the debt triggers a crisis in Europe, [and] that triggers the
beginning of a global recession" but... "there are so many little dominoes, if they all start
falling, one leads to the next."
Mauldin estimates the world has almost "half a quadrillion dollars," or $500 trillion, in
debt and unfunded pension and other liabilities, which he views as unsustainable.
But the flashpoint for the next crisis is likely to be in Europe, especially Italy, he
maintains.
Fed-up with being Sick and Tired , 3 minutes ago
It is an interesting piece. I do recall seeing A. Gary Shilling speaking back then when I
watched mainstream financial news which I no longer do. It would be interesting now to hear
what these four would have to see to actually see de-leveraging occur, and a reset put in
motion. I am tiring of the shenanigans of Central Bankers who clearly are trying everything
to keep this mess propped up.
Iskiab , 21 minutes ago
These guys are all right in their risk assessments but are being cautious on saying how it
will play out. Debt is one factor; but protectionism, demographic changes, and
dedollarization are the other threats.
The truth is no one knows how things will unfold, but I'm betting stagflation will be in
the works for the US for an extended period soon.
smacker , 1 hour ago
The 2008 financial crash was fundamentally caused by excessive DEBT.
That excessive debt was in the hands of: government, corporates and private individuals
and the banksters were making huge profits out of it, so they had no incentive to rein it in.
Clowns like UK Chancellor Gordoom Brown went on record claiming that he'd abolished boom
& bust, so the borrow/spend culture went on. ho-ho.
But borrowers eventually got to the point where they simply couldn't take on any more
debt, so the economy crashed, given that it was based on rising never-ending debt.
All of the labels given to this debt mountain such as: sub-prime mortgages, derivatives,
excessive leverage etc are all valid for analysts to analyse but the common connection
between them all was excessive DEBT.
That is what I concluded at the time and it has been confirmed 1,000,000 times since
then.
I am on record saying that this huge debt pile would take a generation to work its way
thru the economy which implied a long recession or depression.
I also predicted there'd likely be a BIG RESET to speed up the adjustment process. Despite
central banks irresponsibly printing vast amounts of fiat to alleviate the consequences for
their friends the banksters (but in reality to create new asset price bubbles) and dropping
interest rates to near zero to encourage more debt and mal-investment, nothing that has
happened has changed my mind.
The situation today, 10 years later, is that debt levels are hugely higher than in 2008
and the solution which existed then remains on the table. It's just that central banks
falsely believe their money-printing actions will solve the problem whereas in truth they are
in denial.
You cannot solve a debt problem by printing more money and taking on more debt. Central
banks and the likes of Krugman think otherwise.
The day of reckoning is on the horizon: either there will be a huge long
recession/depression to work debt out of the system with all of its implications to asset
values and social cohesion AND/OR a BIG RESET will be enacted. The latter will destroy the
wealth of vast numbers of ordinary people with their savings and investments going down the
flusher.
Neither solution will be a pretty sight.
Prepare accordingly.
Cincinnatuus , 1 hour ago
I think you are spot on with your assessment of the situation, and it seems a great many
other knowledgeable people agree with you. In fact, many market prognosticators are openly
talking about a RESET as a result of the dollar value collapsing and a resulting
hyper-inflation. Too many people think this.
The Contrarian in me says because everybody is expecting that, it's not going to play out
that way. I too, talk about the value of the dollar getting cut in half from here. Instead of
a RESET, I expect the collapse of the value of the dollar to usher in a deflationary
implosion as all that unpayable debt and financial obligations collapses and gets marked down
to zero. Likely the Banksters try some sort of money printing orgy along the way... Never let
a good crisis go to waste.
smacker , 1 hour ago
This article from Robert Prechter dating back to 2010 predicted the:
Prechter wasn't wrong, he just couldn't predict when it would happen. He understood that
the only solution to the huge debt crises was to clear it by letting it work its way thru the
economy (a generation or so to do) or by a BIG RESET.
Nothing has changed. Except that in the last 10 years, central banks have taken actions to
kick the can down the road because they're in denial and think they know better.
What the central banks never took into account in 2008 was that ((other things)) have
changed in the past 10 years, most notably the waning power of the USD as the Global Reserve
Currency which can only have negative consequences.
Fed-up with being Sick and Tired , 3 minutes ago
It is an interesting piece. I do recall seeing A. Gary Shilling speaking back then when I
watched mainstream financial news which I no longer do. It would be interesting now to hear
what these four would have to see to actually see de-leveraging occur, and a reset put in
motion. I am tiring of the shenanigans of Central Bankers who clearly are trying everything
to keep this mess propped up.
Iskiab , 21 minutes ago
These guys are all right in their risk assessments but are being cautious on saying how it
will play out. Debt is one factor; but protectionism, demographic changes, and
dedollarization are the other threats.
The truth is no one knows how things will unfold, but I'm betting stagflation will be in
the works for the US for an extended period soon.
bunkers , 1 hour ago
Greg Hunter, on YouTube, interviews Catherine Austin Fitts in an early Sunday morning
release. It's excellent.
turkey george palmer , 1 hour ago
Ha, good times bad times like the song says
But when I whispered in her ear, I lost another friend, oooh.
smacker , 1 hour ago
The 2008 financial crash was fundamentally caused by excessive DEBT.
That excessive debt was in the hands of: government, corporates and private individuals
and the banksters were making huge profits out of it, so they had no incentive to rein it in.
Clowns like UK Chancellor Gordoom Brown went on record claiming that he'd abolished boom
& bust, so the borrow/spend culture went on. ho-ho.
But borrowers eventually got to the point where they simply couldn't take on any more
debt, so the economy crashed, given that it was based on rising never-ending debt.
All of the labels given to this debt mountain such as: sub-prime mortgages, derivatives,
excessive leverage etc are all valid for analysts to analyse but the common connection
between them all was excessive DEBT.
That is what I concluded at the time and it has been confirmed 1,000,000 times since
then.
I am on record saying that this huge debt pile would take a generation to work its way
thru the economy which implied a long recession or depression.
I also predicted there'd likely be a BIG RESET to speed up the adjustment process. Despite
central banks irresponsibly printing vast amounts of fiat to alleviate the consequences for
their friends the banksters (but in reality to create new asset price bubbles) and dropping
interest rates to near zero to encourage more debt and mal-investment, nothing that has
happened has changed my mind.
The situation today, 10 years later, is that debt levels are hugely higher than in 2008
and the solution which existed then remains on the table. It's just that central banks
falsely believe their money-printing actions will solve the problem whereas in truth they are
in denial.
You cannot solve a debt problem by printing more money and taking on more debt. Central
banks and the likes of Krugman think otherwise.
The day of reckoning is on the horizon: either there will be a huge long
recession/depression to work debt out of the system with all of its implications to asset
values and social cohesion AND/OR a BIG RESET will be enacted. The latter will destroy the
wealth of vast numbers of ordinary people with their savings and investments going down the
flusher.
Neither solution will be a pretty sight.
Prepare accordingly.
U. Sinclair , 1 hour ago
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting
different results".
Cincinnatuus , 1 hour ago
I think you are spot on with your assessment of the situation, and it seems a great many
other knowledgeable people agree with you. In fact, many market prognosticators are openly
talking about a RESET as a result of the dollar value collapsing and a resulting
hyper-inflation. Too many people think this.
The Contrarian in me says because everybody is expecting that, it's not going to play out
that way. I too, talk about the value of the dollar getting cut in half from here. Instead of
a RESET, I expect the collapse of the value of the dollar to usher in a deflationary
implosion as all that unpayable debt and financial obligations collapses and gets marked down
to zero. Likely the Banksters try some sort of money printing orgy along the way... Never let
a good crisis go to waste.
smacker , 1 hour ago
This article from Robert Prechter dating back to 2010 predicted the:
Prechter wasn't wrong, he just couldn't predict when it would happen. He understood that
the only solution to the huge debt crises was to clear it by letting it work its way thru the
economy (a generation or so to do) or by a BIG RESET.
Nothing has changed. Except that in the last 10 years, central banks have taken actions to
kick the can down the road because they're in denial and think they know better.
What the central banks never took into account in 2008 was that ((other things)) have
changed in the past 10 years, most notably the waning power of the USD as the Global Reserve
Currency which can only have negative consequences.
Wahooo , 56 minutes ago
Got the collapse right, but not the hyperinflation.
smacker , 51 minutes ago
Time will tell... if the huge debt problem is resolved correctly by actions intended to
clear it and the USD loses its GRC status, deflation followed by hyperinflation will likely
follow as USDs flood back into the US economy.
CoCosAB , 16 minutes ago
The simple solution is - an old fashion I know - a DEBT JUBILEE !
The last time some schmuck tried to make the millennia tradition return he got himself
crucified!
There's NO OTHER SOLUTION in the present status of the MONETARY SYSTEM to re-balance it.
Of course that the OWNERS of the SYSTEM and the WEALTH (DEBT) don't wont to see their WEALTH
disappear in a click of a button...
So, the next Great Transference of Wealth (1st in 2007/8 and so on) its about to
start!
The example given above its just a peanut " Paulson, of course, loaded up on CDS's and
made $4 billion in what has been called "the greatest trade ever." "We made 15 times our
money," Shilling says. "...
Keep it up SLAVES... "WORK, DEBT, CONSUME"
smacker , 7 minutes ago
A "debt jubilee" is equal to a BIG RESET. I believe this will be enacted but for .govs to
get away with it, there'll have to create a huge distraction so they can blame it on someone
else.
That distraction will almost certainly be WAR or some other major event on a big enough
scale to distract attention away from what they're doing.
Push , 2 hours ago
I guess Tyler has never heard of Lyndon LaRouche? He accurately predicted the 2008 crash,
and others previously. The fact is that monetary policy is not economics, and when you look
at the inter-connectivity of human labor from the perspective of scientific progress it's
easy to see where the financial system is heading, for a huge collapse.
If you study what the United States did coming out of the Revolutionary War to build this
nation, then the subsequent dismantling of Hamilton's system by Andrew Jackson, the the
re-implementation of Hamilton's system by Carey and Clay through Lincoln, you can see that
what people today consider "economics" has nothing to do with the productive powers of the
labor force. British Free Trade, floating exchange rates, the offshore banking industry, Wall
Street, and the City of London are subverting economic fortitude in favor of the
consolidation of power in a process to build a new kind of empire.
The Real Tony , 2 hours ago
Eventually America will run out of lies to tell. This will be the catalyst for the next
crises.
truthalwayswinsout , 2 hours ago
No reason to listen to any of this or even care. Do not invest in the stock market; it is a scam and will always be a scam.
99% of all people should invest in themselves first. That means having no debt and also
having a small company that you only put sweat equity into to make it work starting out as a
side business and keeping it as a side business even if it grows bigger. That also means
going to college and earning a money making degree that is in demand.
Everyone in our family has no mortgages. Everyone in our family has small companies that
because they have no debt churn out cash like ATMs from $6K to $170K per year. And when the
markets crash or assets become extremely cheap we buy assets. We bought homes in the last
fiasco, did minor fixes, rented them, and sold them all 3 years ago. We made a 220% return in
6 years.
We are going to do it again with homes because they will again fall off dramatically and
this time we can pay cash for all the purchases. We will also be looking at unique food
companies that are over leveraged that we can buy at 10 cents on the dollar. (One of our
family is a chef and makes all kinds of stuff that can be packaged and sold but we have no
market access).
Batman11 , 3 hours ago
Problem solving involves two steps.
Understand the problem
Find a solution
Post 2008 - "It was a black swan". We didn't complete step 1, so we couldn't learn anything. The Chinese have now completed step one and have seen their Minsky moment on the
horizon. The indicators of financial crises are over inflated asset prices and the private
debt-to-GDP ratio. Debt is being used to inflate asset prices.
They are called Minsky moments. Too late for Australia, Canada, Sweden, Norway and Hong Kong as they've been inflating
their real estate markets with mortgage lending. Wall Street leverages up the asset price bubble to make the bust much worse.
"It's nearly $14 trillion pyramid of super leveraged toxic assets was built on the back
of $1.4 trillion of US sub-prime loans, and dispersed throughout the world" All the
Presidents Bankers, Nomi Prins.
Leverage is just a profit and loss multiplier. The bankers take the bonuses on the way up and taxpayers cover the losses on the way
down.
Batman11 , 3 hours ago
Bankers only have one real product and that's debt. When they are messing about you can see it in the private debt-to-GDP ratio. It's that simple. They are clever and hide what they are doing on the surface, you just look underneath.
It's easy to see when you know where to look. Even the FED should be able to understand it. Well, we can just tell them where to look anyway; Harvard PhDs aren't what they used to
be.
Batman11 , 2 hours ago
How can bankers use their debt products to create real wealth and increase GDP for
growth? The UK:
Before 1980 – banks lending into the right places that result in GDP growth. After 1980 – banks lending into the wrong places that don't result in GDP growth. The UK eliminated corset controls on banking in 1979 and the banks invaded the mortgage
market and this is where the problem starts.
Richard Werner was in Japan in the 1980s when it went from a very stable economy and
turned into a debt fuelled monster. He worked out what happened and had all the clues
necessary to point him in the right direction. Bank credit (lending) creates money.
1929 – Inflating the US stock market with debt (margin lending)
2008 – Inflating the US real estate market with debt (mortgage lending)
Inflating asset prices with debt (type 3 lending).
Creating real wealth and increasing GDP (growth) requires type 1 lending.
Batman11 , 56 minutes ago
Economic liberalism – the fundamental flaw. Everyone looks to make as much money as possible, doing as little as possible. Asset stripping, activist shareholders being a very good example. Real wealth creation involves making real goods and providing real services, and involves
real work.
It doesn't look very attractive; there are easier ways to make money.
hillwalker , 3 hours ago
The Parasites! No mention of the over $600 TRILLION opaque OFF BALANCE SHEET derivatives market!
Nelbev , 5 hours ago
I think these guys miss the obvious.
1.) There is a housing bubble in London, OZ, Canada in Vancouver and Toronto. US prices
have bounced back nominally, but financing better than prior. The banking crisis will start
with housing bubble abroad.
2.) US deficits and debts are at a stage where inflation will lead to higher rates. The
amount to service the public and private debt load will increase with interest rates. You
cannot just print money forever and expect it never to catch up, or excess reserves not to
escape the banking system blowing air on the fire. The debt load publicly is dangerously high
and will trigger a fiscal crisis when add about $200+ billion a year to fiscal budget.
3.) The EU will disintegrate over next few years, global recession will just accelerate
that and be a feedback, could be a bit of a buffer on US with flight to quality. Think about
when UK contribution to EU budget drys up in March 2019, will EU raise taxes on rest by 20%
to pay for Eurocrats salaries?, and what if Italy has a referendum? EU is mess in making.
4.) Next recession, which could be triggered by stochastic shock of a trade war (err ...
gov managing economy always f*cks it up), the monetary authorities have no buffer to lower
interest rates due to policy since housing bubble, only more useless QE, little stimulus,
just inflation in works.
5.) Last was housing bubble, next is bond bubble . 30 yr tb at 3.13 - you have to
be idiot (or PBC which cannot unload their trill $ portfolio of US toilet paper without
depressing prices) to hold and expect inflation next 30 years at less. You think magically a
trillion dollar year federal deficit will shrink under DT? It really does not matter what the
fed does, stuck in a hard space, print more money to keep ponzi scheme going or neutralize
federal with higher rates and try to shrink balance sheet. You cannot keep interest rates low
when commodity futures arbitrage during inflation offer an alternate return. Easy money will
just fuel fire.
Md4 , 3 hours ago
The Fed can, and does, manipulate some interest rates, and it's balance sheet, all the
time.
But, as I see it, (hyper) inflation isn't just a money supply issue.
It's also a vote of confidence...
Ballooning deficits, and rising debt loads are not elements of fundamentally
healthy economies.
Rather than disappearing dumped U.S. debt, the Fed may just add it to it's "holdings", and
therefore, ensure there's always a "buyer".
Theoretically, perhaps.
But, it can't buy all U.S. debt, lest there be no real "market".
So, that means debt issued won't be free.
It also means there's a real limit to just how much the Fed can manage inflation...
Normalisation of Deviance , 4 hours ago
Excellent comment. Reminds me of the good old days when the comments at ZH were more more
informative and well written than the articles, (which were also informative and well
written).
Also Gold Bitchezz!
Superlat , 4 hours ago
Whether or not this matters, the housing bubble in Seattle has peaked, if not completely
popped. However, it's gone far enough that just about everyone including the media is
admitting a downturn is happening. Whether it persists is anyone's guess.
Maybe the next crisis is just cumulative, not one big thing.
The Real Tony, 2 hours ago
More like the Chinese buying up everything in Seattle has peaked.
The Real Tony , 2 hours ago
The Pakis in Brampton and Mississauga Ontario, Canada will throw their last welfare cheque
towards housing before losing their home/homes to the bank. It might take longer than you
think.
ZIRPdiggler , 5 hours ago
Sorry to rain all over your doom porn ZH'ers but I don't think we are going to have an
"economic collapse". Also, I just heard a new Lindsay Williams.....he says the Trump election
changed everything for the dark cabal's plans lol. Says they're gonna take the DOW over
40,000. Of course, Armstrong has been predicting that for a long long time. So go figure.
Maybe cycles are bullet proof, regardless of who's trying to do the manipulation. keep buying
that gold though....maybe your great grand children can benefit from it.
Md4 , 5 hours ago
"If it doesn't happen, the debt triggers a crisis in Europe, [and] that triggers the
beginning of a global recession" but... "there are so many little dominoes, if they all start
falling, one leads to the next."
What people don't seem to understand yet, is that this is no longer just an economic or
even a debt problem ex parte.
The non-solution of the last ten years have now made this a human quality of life
problem.
The loss of so many middle class income opportunities over the now-near 50 years of
outsourcing, has not only caused more insurmountable debt loads to form, but the chronic
income insufficiency is hammering even first-world social psyches as never before.
After all, rising debt is rising for a reason.
It's a big mistake to automatically assume a financial collapse has to precede a
social calamity.
It can easily be the other way around...
Captain Nemo de Erehwon , 3 hours ago
You have to design financial systems for human needs, taking into account human
characteristics. There are no "laws" of social sciences that "must" be followed. Physics is
the only constraint.
Fred box , 6 hours ago
Bottom line folks,this party is over done.One of many different things can cause at the least a 20%
correction(-5000pts) as well as bigger.The TBTF are now To Humungous To Fail.We live in
interesting times!
TRN , 6 hours ago
Likely 40% correction.
LeftandRightareWrong , 6 hours ago
Public pension systems and unfettered illegal immigration.
Normal , 6 hours ago
$500 trillion, in debt. That means that some kind of system had it to lend. Makes me want
to puke and then go start a revolution.
Bricker , 7 hours ago
All 3 in common...Debt bomb. 1929 Debt, 2008 Debt, 20?? debt; IMO its student loans
wrapped up as commercial paper and bonds.
Someone is going to miss an interest payment after tranches are bet on with student
loans
GoldHermit , 7 hours ago
Watch the Big Short. Those guys came as close as anyone IMO
daedon , 7 hours ago
No, READ The Big Short.
Erwin643 , 7 hours ago
Yeah, try making a movie based on a book. You have to take a lot of shortcuts. I think The Big Short was one of the very best films ever made, based on a book.
The actors played their real-life counterparts perfectly.
daedon , 7 hours ago
Forget (broken clock) Schiff, I read a great book in 1993, The Great Reckoning: Protect
Yourself in the Coming Depression. That was 25 years ago, I'm getting impatient. French president Charles de Gaulle saw this shit coming in 1968 and he died waiting for
it.
The Roman Empire lasted 500 years, so be patient, Trump's bosses have an armada of think
tanks staffed with Aspies that have IQs well above low earth orbit at their disposal, so they
could drag this out another 1000 years.
The economic model that the word "neoliberalism" was coined to describe was developed by
Chicago school economists in the 1960s and 1970s based upon Austrian neoclassical
economic theories, but heavily influenced by Ayn
Rand's barmy pseudo-philosophy of Übermenschen and greed-worship .
The first experiment in applied neoliberal theory began on September 11th 1973 in
Chile , when a US backed military coup resulted in the death of social-democratic leader
Salvador Allende and his replacement with the brutal military dictator General Pinochet
(Margaret Thatcher's friend and idol). Thousands of people were murdered by the Pinochet regime
for political reasons and tens of thousands more were tortured as Pinochet and the "Chicago
boys" set about implementing neoliberal economic reforms and brutally reppressing anyone that
stood in their way. The US financially doped the Chilean economy in order to create the
impression that these rabid-right wing reforms were successful. After the "success" of the
Chilean neoliberal experiment, the instillation and economic support of right-wing military
dictatorships to impose neoliberal economic reforms became unofficial US foreign policy.
The first of the democratically elected neoliberals were Margaret
Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Reagan in the US. They both set about introducing
ideologically driven neoliberal reforms, such as the complete withdrawal of capital controls by
Tory Chancellor Geoffrey Howe and the deregulation of the US financial markets that led to vast
corruption scandals like Enron and the global
financial sector insolvency crisis of 2007-08 .
By 1989 the ideology of neoliberalism was enshrined as the economic orthodoxy of the world
as undemocratic Washington based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
the World Bank and the US Treasury Department signed up to a ten point economic plan which was
riddled with neoliberal ideology such as trade liberalisation, privatisation, financial sector
deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy. This agreement between anti-democratic organisations
is misleadingly referred to as "The Washington Consensus".
These days, the IMF is one of the most high profile pushers of neoliberal economic policies.
Their strategy involves applying strict "structural adjustment" conditions on their loans.
These conditions are invariably neoliberal reforms such as privatisation of utilities, services
and government owned industries, tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, the abandonment of
capital controls, the removal of democratic controls over central banks and monetary policy and
the deregulation of financial industries.
"... The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto ..."
"... "Uneven Development: Understanding the Roots of Inequality" ..."
"... "A generation ago, the country's social contract was premised on higher wages and reliable benefits, provided chiefly by employers. In recent decades, we've moved to a system where low wages are supposed to be made bearable by low consumer prices and a hodgepodge of government assistance programs. But as dissatisfaction with this arrangement has grown, it is time to look back at how we got here and imagine what the next stage of the social contract might be." ..."
The creation of large enterprises gave rise not only to an organized labor movement, but to
a larger bureaucratic regulatory state with agencies intended to help stabilize and grow
capitalism while keeping the working class loyal to the social contract. Crisis in public
confidence resulted not only from economic recessions and depressions built into the economy,
but the contradictions capitalism was fostering in society as the benefits in advances in
industry, science and technology accrued to the wealthy while the social structure remained
hierarchical.
Ever since 1947 when the ideological father of neoliberalism Friedrich von Hayek called a
conference in Mont Pelerin to address how the new ideology would replace Keynesianism,
neoliberals have been promising to address these contradictions, insisting that eliminating the
social welfare state and allowing complete market dominationthat would result in society's
modernization and would filter down to all social classes and nations both developed and
developing. Such thinking is rooted in the modernization theory that emerged after WWII when
the US took advantage of its preeminent global power to impose a transformation model on much
of the non-Communist world. Cold War liberal economist Walt Rostow articulated the
modernization model of development in his work entitled The Stages of Economic Growth: A
Non-Communist Manifesto , 1960. By the 1970s, neoliberals adapted Rostow's modernization
theory as their bible and the core of the social contract. (Evans Rubara, "Uneven
Development: Understanding the Roots of Inequality"
The challenge for the political class has always been and remains to mobilize a popular base
that would afford legitimacy to the social contract. The issue for mainstream political parties
is not whether there is a systemic problem with the social contract intended to serve the
capitalist class, but the degree to which the masses can be co-opted through various methods to
support the status quo. "A generation ago, the country's social contract was premised on
higher wages and reliable benefits, provided chiefly by employers. In recent decades, we've
moved to a system where low wages are supposed to be made bearable by low consumer prices and a
hodgepodge of government assistance programs. But as dissatisfaction with this arrangement has
grown, it is time to look back at how we got here and imagine what the next stage of the social
contract might be."
Considering that Keynesianism and neoliberalism operate under the same social structure and
differ only on how best to achieve capital formation while retaining sociopolitical conformity,
the article above published in The Atlantic illustrates how analysts/commentators
easily misinterpret nuances within a social contract for the covenant's macro goals. A similar
view as that expressed in The Atlantic is also reflected in the New America
Foundation's publications, identifying specific aspects of Arthur Schlesinger's Cold War
militarist policies enmeshed with social welfare Keynesianism as parts of the evolving social
contract.
Identifying the social contract with a specific set of policies under different
administrations evolving to reflect the nuances of political class and economic elites,some
analysts contend that there is a European Union-wide social contract to which nationally-based
social contracts must subordinate their sovereignty. This model has evolved to accommodate
neoliberal globalism through regional trade blocs on the basis of a 'patron-client'integration
relationship between core and periphery countries.
Ágnes Heller's work is associated with Moral
Anthropology and "probing modernity's destiny for a non-predatory humanism that combines
the existential wisdom of ancient theory with modern values." [1]
Neomodernism accepts some aspects of postmodernism's critique of modernism, notably that
modernism elevated the world view of dominant groups to the status of objective fact, thereby
failing to express the viewpoint of " subaltern groups," such as women and ethnic
minorities. However, in her view, neomodernism rejects postmodernism as:
Unscientific: the ability of science to generate useful knowledge cannot be waved away as
" scientism ".
Journalism: as not giving any explanation as to how or why things happen.
Local: as being unable to recognise patterns that occur across time or location.
Unverified: as lacking any validation process, and therefore proceeding by fad and
hierarchy.
Victor Grauer
In 1982, Victor Grauer attacked "the cult of the new," and proposed that there had arisen a
"neo-modern" movement in the arts which was based on deep formal rigor, rather than on "the
explosion of pluralism." [2]
His argument was that post-modernism was exclusively a negative
attack on modernism, and had no future separate from modernism proper, a point of view which is
held by many scholars of modernism. [2]
Carlos
Escudé
In "Natural Law at War", a review essay published on 31 May 2002 in The Times Literary
Supplement (London, TLS No. 5174), Carlos Escudé wrote: "Postmodern humanity faces a
major challenge. It must solve a dilemma it does not want to face. If all cultures are morally
equivalent, then all human individuals are not endowed with the same human rights, because some
cultures award some men more rights than are allotted to other men and women. If, on the other
hand, all men and women are endowed with the same human rights, then all cultures are not
morally equivalent, because cultures that acknowledge that 'all men are created equal' are to
be regarded as 'superior,' or 'more advanced' in terms of their civil ethics than those that do
not." Escudé's brand of neomodernism contends with "politically-correct intellectuals
who prefer to opt for the easy way out, asserting both that we all have the same human rights
and that all cultures are equal."
Andre Durand and Armando Alemdar
Published their own Neomodernist Manifesto in 2001. The Neomodern Manifesto posits criteria
for a revitalised approach to works of art founded on history, traditional artistic
disciplines, theology and philosophy. Durand's and Alemdar's Neomodernism views art as an act
of expression of the sublime; in Neomodern painting as a representation of the visual
appearance of things with correspondence to the physical world understood as a model for
beauty, truth, and good. Neomodern works of art via mimesis interpret and present the universe
and man's existence, in line with the belief that the reality we live is but a mirror of
another universe that can only be accessed through inspiration and imagination.
Gabriel Omowaye
Gabriel Lolu Omowaye, in his speech 'A new challenging time' to a group of college students
in Nigeria, in 2005, took a different approach to neomodernism. He viewed neomodernism as a
political philosophy that became more prominent in the early 21st century. To him, it involves
common goal and joint global effort - universalism - to address arising global challenges such
as population growth, natural resources, climate change and environmental factors, natural
causes and effects, and health issues. Omowaye posited that political will is the major driver
of economic necessities. As a result, he added that neomodernism involves limited
government-regulated liberalism along with high drive innovation and entrepreneurship, high
literacy rate, progressive taxation for social equity, philanthropism, technological
advancement, economic development and individual growth. He perceived the quest for equal
representation of men and women in the neomodern era as a strong signal for advent of
postmodernism. So also, the quest for youths engagement in resourceful and rewarding ways
especially in governance, peace building and self-productivity has not taken a formidable shape
than it is at this time. As far as he was concerned, he believed most of these challenges were
not adequately tackled in preceding eras and the arising challenges thus stated were not
prepared for and that cause for change in mentality and thinking which the neomodern era is
providing for solutions to the era's challenges, with a prospective view to global stability
and social inclusion. His philosophical thought premised on a fact that new times require new
approaches from new reasonings, even if some applicable ideas or methologies could be borrowed
from the past, an acute form of paradigm-shift.
Omowaye believed in idealism as guiding realism and in turn, realism as defining idealism.
Moral concepts cannot be wished away from social norms, but evolving social trends dissipate
morality in form of religion and logical standards and adheres to current norms in form of
'what should be'. Consequently, the manner at which 'what should be' is driven at in the modern
and postmodern eras, being widely accepted became 'what is'. The manner at which the damage of
the new 'what is' is hampering development process in the form of higher mortality rate and
decadence of cultural good, calls to question the ideology behind the norms that are less
beneficial to a wider society in form of globalization. The world as a whole through
technological advancement became a global community particularly, in the 21st century. Former
Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan then stated that the "suffering anywhere
concerns people everywhere". Champions of neomodern age such as Bill Gates and Richard Branson
in the field of philanthropy expounded their vision to encompass the global community in social
good such as alleviating poverty, eradicating diseases, enhancing literacy rates and addressing
climate changes.
Technological advancement of the neomodern era however has its downturns in that it added to
the decadence in cultural good such that people everywhere, especially high number of youths
follow the trends in the new 'what is', which include social celebrities in the form of
dressing, sexual activities, extravagancies, and less interest in learning and even, working
but more interest in making money. Money became a value-determinant than utility. This brought
about frauds in various sectors. This latter aspect is not limited to youths but even company
executives, and politicians of many societies. Technological advancement has made privacy less
safer for intrusion and people more safer for protection. The supposedly good of technological
advancement in the neomodern era has included whistle blow such as Wikileaks' Julian Assange.
The more good has been in the level of innovations and innovators it has sprung up such as
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and easier business models and broader social connectivity. This
latter part has lessened more amity in immediate environment and many people tend to live more
in the virtual world neomodern technological advancements have created.
Neomodernism checks more into the current relative way of living of people and the society
to correct necessary abnormalities and to encourage virtues and values within the global
community in the 21st century.
In furtherance, Gabriel Omowaye's view of neomodernism was that knowledge comes from
learning and experience, and wisdom primarily from intuition. Knowledge is a variable of set
occurrences of that which happens to a man and that which a man seeks to know. Knowledge is
vital and good for discretion but a minor part of discernment wherein what is known might not
be applicable. Intuition is a function of the mind and the mind, not seen, and yet unknown to
the carrier, is a function of what put the thoughts, ideas and discretion in it. Wisdom without
knowledge is vague, and knowledge without wisdom, unworthy. Wisdom perfects knowledge, and in
the absence of either, the sole is delusory.
Looks like this Iago-style false flag operation by NYT: the anonymous author does not exists and the the plot is to saw
discord and mutual suspicion
Notable quotes:
"... The more I study US politics, the less useful I find it to think of it in political terms. The two-headed one party system exists to give Americans the illusion of choice while advancing the agendas of the plutocratic class which owns and operates both parties, yes, but even more importantly it's a mechanism of narrative control. ..."
"... If you belonged to a ruling class, obviously your goal would be to ensure your subjects' continued support for you. In a corporatist oligarchy, the rulers are secret and the subjects don't know they're ruled, and power is held in place with manipulation and with money. As such a ruler your goal would be to find a way to manipulate the masses into supporting your agendas, and, since people are different, you'd need to use different narratives to manipulate them. You'd have to divide them, tell them different stories, turn them against each other, play them off one another, suck them in to the tales you are spinning with the theater of enmity and heroism. ..."
"... As a result of the New York Times op-ed, if this administration engages in yet another of its many, many establishment capitulations (let's say by attacking the Syrian government again ), Trump's supporters won't see it as his fault; it will be blamed on the deep state insiders in his administration who have been working to thwart his agendas of peace and harmony. ..."
"... Would a billionaire WWE Hall of Famer and United States President understand the theater of staged conflict for the advancement of plutocratic interests, and willingly participate in it? I'm going to say probably. ..."
If any evidence existed to be found that Donald Trump had illegally colluded with the
Russian government to rig the 2016 presidential election, that evidence would have been picked
up by the sprawling surveillance networks of the US and its allies and leaked to the Washington
Post before Obama left office.
Russiagate is like a mirage. From a distance it looks like a solid, tangible thing, but when
you actually move in to examine it critically you find nothing but gaping plot holes,
insinuation, innuendo, conflicting narratives, bizarre mental contortions to avoid
acknowledging contradictory information, a few arrests for corruption and process crimes, and a
lot of hot air. The whole thing has been held together by nothing but the confident-sounding
assertions of pundits and politicians and sheer, mindless repetition. And, as we approach the
two year mark since this president's election, we have not seen one iota of movement toward
removing him from office. The whole thing's a lie, and the smart movers and shakers behind it
are aware that it is a lie.
And yet they keep beating on it. Day after day after day after day it's been Russia, Russia,
Russia, Russia. Instead of attacking this president for his many, many real problems in a way
that will do actual damage, they attack this fake blow-up doll standing next to him in a way
that never goes anywhere and never will, like a pro wrestler theatrically stomping on the
canvass next to his downed foe.
What's up with that?
... ... ....
As you doubtless already know by now, the New York Times has made the wildly controversial
decision to publish an anonymous op-ed
reportedly authored by "a senior official in the Trump administration." The op-ed's author
claims to be part of a secret coalition of patriots who dislike Trump and are "working
diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations." These
"worst inclinations" according to the author include trying to make peace with Moscow and
Pyongyang, being rude to longtime US allies, saying mean things about the media, being
"anti-trade", and being "erratic". The possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment is briefly
mentioned but dismissed. The final paragraphs are spent gushing about John McCain for no
apparent reason.
I strongly encourage you to read the piece in its entirety, because for all the talk and
drama it's generating, it doesn't actually make any sense. While you are reading it, I
encourage you to keep the following question in mind: what could anyone possibly gain by
authoring this and giving it to the New York Times ?
Seriously, what could be gained? The op-ed says essentially nothing, other than to tell
readers to relax and trust in anonymous administration insiders who are working against the bad
guys on behalf of the people (which is interestingly the exact same message of the right-wing
8chan conspiracy phenomenon QAnon, just with the white hats and black hats reversed). Why would
any senior official risk everything to publish something so utterly pointless? Why risk getting
fired (or risk losing all political currency in the party if NYTAnon is Mike Pence, as
has been
theorized ) just to communicate something to the public that doesn't change or accomplish
anything? Why publicly announce your undercover conspiracy to undermine the president in a
major news outlet at all?
What are the results of this viral op-ed everyone's talking about? So far it's a bunch of
Democratic partisans making a lot of excited whooping noises, and Trump loyalists feeling
completely vindicated in the belief that all of their conspiracy theories have been proven
correct. Many rank-and-file Trump haters are feeling a little more relaxed and complacent
knowing that there are a bunch of McCain-loving "adults in the room" taking care of everything,
and many rank-and-file Trump supporters are more convinced than ever that Donald Trump is a
brave populist hero leading a covert 4-D chess insurgency against the Deep State. In other
words, everyone's been herded into their respective partisan stables and trusting the
narratives that they are being fed there.
And, well, I just think that's odd.
Did you know that Donald Trump is in the WWE Hall of Fame ? He was inducted
in 2013, and he's been enthusiastically involved in pro wrestling for many years, both as a fan
and as a performer .
He's made more of a study on how to draw a crowd in to the theatrics of a choreographed fight
scene than anyone this side of the McMahon family (a member of whom happens to be part of the Trump
administration currently).
You don't have to get into any deep conspiratorial rabbit hole to consider the possibility
that all this drama and conflict is staged from top to bottom. Commentators on all sides
routinely crack jokes about how the mainstream media pretends to attack Trump but secretly
loves him because he brings them amazing ratings. Anyone with their eyes even part way open
already knows that America's two mainstream parties feign intense hatred for one another while
working together to pace their respective bases into accepting more and more neoliberal
exploitation at home and more and more neoconservative bloodshed abroad. They spit and snarl
and shake their fists at each other, then cuddle up and share candy
when it's time for a public gathering. Why should this administration be any different?
I believe that a senior Trump administration official probably did write that anonymous
op-ed. I do not believe that they were moved to write it out of compassion for the poor
Americans who are feeling emotionally stressed about the president. I believe it was written
and published for the same reason many other things are written and published in mainstream
media: because we are all being played.
The more I study US politics, the less useful I find it to think of it in political terms.
The two-headed one party system exists to give Americans the illusion of choice while advancing
the agendas of the plutocratic class which owns and operates both parties, yes, but even more
importantly it's a mechanism of narrative control. If you can separate the masses into two
groups based on extremely broad ideological characteristics, you can then funnel streamlined
"us vs them" narratives into each of the two stables, with the white hats and black hats
reversed in each case. Now you've got Republicans cheering for the president and Democrats
cheering for the CIA, for the FBI, and now for a platoon of covert John McCains alleged to be
operating on the inside of Trump's own administration. Everyone's cheering for one aspect of
the US power establishment or another.
If you belonged to a ruling class, obviously your goal would be to ensure your subjects'
continued support for you. In a corporatist oligarchy, the rulers are secret and the subjects don't
know they're ruled, and power is held in place with manipulation and with money. As such a
ruler your goal would be to find a way to manipulate the masses into supporting your agendas,
and, since people are different, you'd need to use different narratives to manipulate them.
You'd have to divide them, tell them different stories, turn them against each other, play them
off one another, suck them in to the tales you are spinning with the theater of enmity and
heroism.
As a result of the New York Times op-ed, if this administration engages in yet another of
its many, many establishment capitulations (let's say by
attacking the Syrian government again ), Trump's supporters won't see it as his fault; it
will be blamed on the deep state insiders in his administration who have been working to thwart
his agendas of peace and harmony. Meanwhile those who see Trump as a heel won't experience any
cognitive dissonance if any of the establishment agendas they support are carried out, because
they can give the credit to the secret hero squad in the White House.
Would a billionaire WWE Hall of Famer and United States President understand the theater of
staged conflict for the advancement of plutocratic interests, and willingly participate in it?
I'm going to say probably.
* * *
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish
is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , or buying my book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
I received a message last week from a savvy reader, a former McKinsey partner who has also
done among other things significant pro-bono work with housing not-for-profits (as in he has
more interest and experience in social justice issues than most people with his background).
His query:
We both know that financialization has, among so many other things, turned large swaths of
the capital markets into a casino
Here's my thought/question: is there a house?
The common wisdom is that the 'house wins' in casinos
In all likelihood, at least in the great financial crisis, the TBTF banks were the 'house'
yet, it's at least a bit different from a casino house because, absent the bailouts, those
banks would not have won.
So, who or what was really the 'house'? Was it the Fed? Did the Fed actually 'win'?
Maybe the 'house' is the 1% . or, more precisely, the .01%???
I have included this fetching image to give you the opportunity to formulate your own answer
before scrolling down.
My reply:
The producers in finance: the managing directors and heads of trading desks at major
banks, the more senior managers who are along for the ride, the hedgies, guys in private
equity.
The "house" is individuals, not institutions. That is how looting works.
Remember, the question is not merely who wins from our current hypertrophied financial
system, but who is set up to be the house, as in to win no matter what. The answer in this case
is intrinsically linked to looting.
an economic underground can come to life if firms have an incentive to go broke for profit
at society's expense (to loot) instead of to go for broke (to gamble on success). Bankruptcy
for profit will occur if poor accounting, lax regulation, or low penalties for abuse give
owners an incentive to pay themselves more than their firms are worth and then default on
their debt obligations. Bankruptcy for profit occurs most commonly when a government
guarantees a firm's debt obligations. The most obvious such guarantee is deposit insurance,
but governments also implicitly or explicitly guarantee the policies of insurance companies,
the pension obligations of private firms, virtually all the obligations of large banks,
student loans, mortgage finance of subsidized housing, and the general obligations of large
or influential firms. . . .
Because net worth is typically a small fraction of total assets for the insured
institutions, . . . bankruptcy for profit can easily become a more attractive strategy for
the owners than maximizing true economic values. If so, the normal economics of maximizing
economic value is replaced by the topsy-turvy economics of maximizing current extractable
value , which tends to drive the firm's economic net worth deeply negative. Once owners
have decided that they can extract more from a firm by maximizing their present take, any
action that allows them to extract more currently will be attractive -- even if it causes a
large reduction in the true economic net worth of the firm).
The difference between the classic Akerlof/Romer notion of looting, where the owner
ssyphoned off funds and left the company so fragile that eventual bankruptcy was almost
inevitable, is that the evolution of Wall Street has produced a much broader class of
individuals who are treated as if they have claims on profit streams. That puts them in a
quasi-ownership position.
These "producers" are typically perceived to have enough control over a revenue stream as to
have leverage over the institution. That includes anyone who runs a profit center (and
remember, a profit center can be as small as one trader and a trading assistant), as well as
individuals on the more-team-oriented investment banking side of the house that have strong
enough client relationships that they could take some business with them (and perhaps other
members of their team) if they left. As we explained in ECONNED:
In the financial services industry version of looting, we instead have firms where
operational authority, is decentralized, vested in senior business managers, or "producers."
As a result of industry evolution and perceived competitive pressures, these producers, as a
result of formal incentives plus values held widely within the industry, focused solely on
producing the maximum amount possible in the current bonus period. The formal and informal
rewards system thus tallies exactly with the topsy-turvy scheme of " maximizing current
extractable value ."
This behavior in the past was positive, indeed highly productive, as long as it was
contained and channeled via tough-minded oversight, meaning top management who could properly
supervise the business. The main mechanisms are management reporting systems, risk
management, and personal understanding of and involvement in day-to-day operations, plus
external checks, such as regulations and criminal penalties. For a host of reasons, the
balance of power has shifted entirely toward the forces that encourage looting. And because
the damage that results cannot clearly be pinned on the top brass it is difficult to
ascertain from the outside whether the executives merely unwittingly enabled this process or
were active perpetrators.
Notice this excessive extraction that led to business failure took place even though these
firms had high levels of employee stock ownership. At Bear Stearns, members of the firm owned
roughly one-third of the shares. At Lehman, they held nearly 30%, and the average managing
director owned shares worth on average two times his annual take. Economic theory says that
share ownership by employees and managers should lead them to produce the best long-term
results for the enterprise. Yet those assumptions were shown to be flawed on Wall Street, as
they were with Enron, in which 62% of the 401(k) assets were invested in Enron stock, and
senior management also had significant share ownership.
Just as we have seen in Corporate America, using equity to align the interests of managers
and shareholders has produced the converse of what the theorists expected, a pathological
fixation on short-term results. On Wall Street, where the business model and rewards systems
already had an intrinsic propensity to emphasize the quick kill, widespread employee
ownership was an ineffective counter at best and more likely served to reinforce the fixation
on current performance, irrespective of the true cost of achieving it.
The very worst feature of looting version 2.0 is that it has created doomsday machines. In
the old construct, the CEO fraudsters would drain a business, let it fail, and move on. The
fact of bankruptcy assured that the trail of wreckage would catch up with them sooner or
later. But here, the firms, due to their perceived systemic importance, are not being
permitted to fail. So there are no postmortems, in particular criminal investigations, to
determine to what extent fraud, as opposed to mere greed and rampant stupidity, led to what
would otherwise have been their end.
Now mind you, these producers aren't the Ayn Randian rugged individualists that they often
envision themselves to be. Their success depends on institutional infrastructure: concentrated
capital and information flows, access to cheap leverage, risk control systems, a back office,
etc. Quite a few successful Goldman traders have flopped when trying to launch their own hedge
fund. John Meriwether, a storied Salomon trader, has presided over a series of hedge fund
failures in his later life, the most spectacular being LTCM. Former Goldman CEO Jon Corzine is
another high profile example of a supposedly successful trader and trading manager who came a
cropper when given more degrees of freedom at MF Global than at his former home.
But while these individuals' ability to succeed on a stand-alone basis or in different type
of firm is subject to question, they nevertheless hold their employers hostage. If they decamp
to a competitor, they not only take some (or a lot) of their revenues with them, but they can
damage the ability to be competitive in closely aligned businesses. Senior people cannot be
replaced quickly and each unit's activity is so specialized that employees from other area
can't pinch hit for the recently departed producer or team. And if the loss is significant
enough, competitors will poach on other business units, which in a worse case scenario can put
a firm in a downspiral.
And the worst is given the present structure of these firms, there is no simple way to curb
the leverage these staffers have over their employers. Again from ECONNED:
On paper, capital markets enterprises look like a great opportunity. The firms that are at
the nexus of global money flows participate in a very high level of transactions. Enough of
them are in complex products or not deeply liquid markets so as to allow firms to find ways
to uncover, in many cases create, and capture profit opportunities. New, typically
sophisticated products often provide particularly juicy returns to the intermediary. And in
theory, clever, adaptive, narrowly skilled staff can stay enough ahead of the game so that
the amount captured off this huge transaction flow is handsome.
Once again, however, the real world deviates in important respects from the fantasy. Why?
This business model is also a managerial nightmare.
We have a paradox: "success" and profitability in the investment banking context entails
giving broad discretion to individuals with highly specialized know-how. But the businesses
have outgrown the ability to monitor and manage these specialists effectively. The high
frequency, meaningful stakes, and large absolute number of decisions made at the operational
level, the geographic span of these firms, and the often imperfectly understood
interconnections among business risks make effective supervision well-nigh impossible.
What is intriguing about the ex-McKinsey partner's question is that even after reading
extensively about the crisis, he was unable to see the true locus of power in the financial
services industry. Yet the answer is obvious to anyone who has worked in or closely with major
capital markets firms.
And the conundrum we have outlined means the people who call for prosecutions of individuals
are exactly right. Punishing firms is ineffective. Firms are fluid; key players can and often
do move around. And the culpability for bad practices typically resides both at the producer
level (the manager immediately responsible for the unit in which the bad conduct took place)
and more senior management (which typically benefits directly from any ill-gotten profits, in
terms of their compensation levels, and needs to be held responsible, even if they were simply
derelict in duty, as opposed to actively complicit).
When the SEC was respected and feared, back in the stone ages of the 1970s, the capital
markets delivered far better value for society as a whole than they do now. But even though
financial services industry looters are the big winners in the capital markets casino, many
members of the 0.1% have been along for the ride. Until some of the uber-rich join the great
unwashed as victims of financial services industry looting, the house has nothing to worry
about.
"Consider this analogy: In a hypothetical casino card game the house takes 5% of every
pot. If 10% of the money at the table is on average played on each hand, then the house takes
0.5% of the money in the game on each rake. After 200 hands, 100% of the money that is on
average at the table has been taken by the house. The only way the game may continue is to
have new money come to it. The winners, of course, smell the new blood and even anticipate it
greedily. And the biggest winner over a time is always the house. Until the free market
ideologues took over, the biggest difference between a casino bank and finance was that the
gaming house took a bigger cut of the handle.
"The media have played up the CDS and futures gambling aspect of derivatives, in what they
call 'Casino Capitalism.' This distracts from the better casino analogy where the principal
players are the house that always wins. The fundamental function of the big hedge funds,
banks, brokerages, private equity firms [formerly venture capitalists] investors and
insurance companies is to take a cut of almost every transaction and enterprise through
interest on finance and profit on investment, banking, debt and credit card fees, etc. Even
if some of them did lose a little on the derivatives frenzy and didn't pass on their losses
– to we, the people, their victims, the all time losers – by virtue of the
bailout, the biggest just got bigger and only the suckers and small fry got hurt badly or
wiped out."
Good analogy. I see the casino as two camps: 1) Those getting commissions on trades; and
2) those supplying casino credit to players needing help through volitile periods. The house
loves volatility because it drives both of these mechanisms for paying the house.
Great post Yves. I was taken by this portion near the end:
When the SEC was respected and feared, back in the stone ages of the 1970s, the capital
markets delivered far better value for society as a whole than they do now. But even though
financial services industry looters are the big winners in the capital markets casino, many
members of the 0.1% have been along for the ride. Until some of the uber-rich join the great
unwashed as victims of financial services industry looting, the house has nothing to worry
about.
I had thought that this had indeed started to happen. The biggest example I can think of
is JP Morgan's dealings with Madoff's failed Ponzi scheme. And probing the recesses of my
memory and then searching the blog, I came up with these stories:
So it would seem that the 1%, dare I say, 0.1% and 0.01% are indeed being hit. But they
seem unable to align their material interests with better control over Wall St. Is that
because an relatively insignificant portion of the uber wealthy are being hit, or because
Wall St. is so deeply embedded in the bodies that should be regulating it?
Even among the super-rich, there is a collective action problem. I met with Blavatnik to
discuss the idea of broader noise-making about JP Morgan misconduct. He made clear he was not
interested in looking like an enemy of banks, that (among other things) as a buyer and seller
of companies, he needed them. He was receptive to the idea of narrower action but I concluded
the cost of doing it right was probably higher than made sense given the uncertain payoff.
But part of it also is that structurally, they are forced to go after the institution. They
can't single out the individuals who were the immediate perps (save for describing their role
in litigation).
And you also have the problem of denial. Blavanik was so clearly abused, in a way that
there was no basis for self-recriminatation that he was clear about taking action, which in
his case was suing. But a lot of people are really embarrassed about losing money or being
taken advantage of. So even if they might threaten litigation, they won't talk it up among
their peers to try to shift opinions and recruit allies.
So I'd hazard things have to get worse before the real economy types start to organize to
rein in Wall Street.
"But a lot of people are really embarrassed about losing money or being taken advantage
of. So even if they might threaten litigation, they won't talk it up among their peers to try
to shift opinions and recruit allies."
Very well said! This same psychology partly explains why, at the lower end of the
socio-economic spectrum, it is so difficult to get workers to go after even egregious cases
of wage theft. Plus, these workers rightly understand that, by taking action, they risk
gaining a "troublemaker" label that will make it very hard for them to keep earning their
daily bread.
I agree with Larry– this is a really great, great post of yours. I think I now have
to get your book and read it -- soon .
In reading through the fascinating observations, I was reminded of a saying which, in the
current context would run, "If you have to ask 'Who is the 'House' in this (gaming
operation)?' then it's clear that you and yours don't belong to it."
'Maximizing current extractable value tends to drive the firm's economic net worth
deeply negative.'
This is true in spades for governments. Lawrence Kotlikoff has estimated Usgov's negative
net worth at minus $200 trillion, or twelve years' worth of GDP.
For those at the top, looting is done indirectly by capitalizing on one's prestige and
power after leaving office. Those lifelong public servants, the Clintons, have raked in
nearly half a billion this way.
Meanwhile, our corpgov sponsors loot directly via federal expenditures. Our splendid new
war in Syria, voted yesterday, is looting in its purest form.
And certainly our healthcare system is organized around the principle of looting. Cui
bono? Well, the insurance companies, hospital groups and pharma companies. Who owns them? The
usual plutocrat suspects. Since they make the rules, it's hard to find a game that they
lose.
It seems to me that there is a sever disconnect between money and value delivered. The
whole system seems utterly broken because of the asynchronous nature of debt. You can make a
trick look like value by deferring the truth through debt.
"Money" has become too abstract and that we need to move back up the scale towards
bartering in order to re-assert the link between reward and value delivered.
"Investors who lost their life savings in convicted Texas financier R. Allen Stanford's $7
billion Ponzi scheme got their day in court today on the first day of the Supreme Court's
2013 term, but it was unclear whether their plea will pay dividends. Unable to recover their
investments from Stanford or his fraudulent entities, including a bank based in Antigua, the
plaintiffs filed class-action lawsuits in state and federal courts in Texas and Louisiana.
But a law passed by Congress in 1998 was intended to preclude such lawsuits and assert
federal jurisdiction. Faced with conflicting lower court rulings, the Supreme Court must
decide whether to side with the defrauded investors or the financial institutions, law firms
and insurance companies accused of aiding Stanford's scheme. The federal government, seeking
to protect the Securities and Exchange Commission's regulatory authority over security fraud
claims, is siding with the defendants." http://www.businessreport.com/section/tagged&tagID=1085&tag=Fraud
I think a lot of very wealthy fraud victims still believe that they have a chance of
recovering their losses through legal channels, not realizing how much the game has been
rigged to allow the fraudsters to operate with impunity. Perhaps more importantly, I think a
lot of wealthy investors are simply unaware of how they are being fleeced. They have very
diversified investments, usually managed by other people. They may feel mildly disappointed
that their returns are modest in what the media has told them is a historic bull market. Yet
as long as some parts of their portfolio do bring decent returns, the overall picture they
have of their finances is that of modest growth– so they shrug off the possibility that
they have been conned. No one likes to think of themselves as a mark. As long as they still
have enough money sloshing around to live in the style to which they're accustomed, why go
into all the ugly details?
You make some valid points about the wealthier investors and not wanting to believe that
they're a mark or a victim of some looter. That, plus they're probably connected by family or
societal ties to the looters, so they don't want to make waves. Making waves are for the
rabble, who'll lose anyway.
Unless or until the looting gets really egregious and/or enough of the very wealthy (upper
2% or 3% but not .1%) starting seeing their wealth dwindling, don't expect them to lift a
finger or make a stink.
The court cases against crooks like Madoff and Stanford may (have in the case of Madoff, I
believe) result in investors getting some of their money back, but I believe it ends up being
pennies on the dollar. Probably worse than the drubbing that investors took from the crash of
'08.
Believing that the USA regulatory, administrative and/or "justice" system will serve your
needs is what I like to call Magical Thinking. Ain't gonna happen. Most we rubes might get
is, as with Madoff's case, pennies on the dollar.
Great post and great question–the term "maximizing current extractable value" is a
terrific term that should be more generally used about all assets and call it "MCEV." Anyway
the term does open up vast horizons. As for who the "House" is I think it is not the key
managers and traders who seem to have the world by the short hairs but, instead, the imperial
apparatus that consists of a network of oligarchs around the world that make sure the crooked
game continues and this would include the crooked dealers; we have to remember that,
ultimately the ones who control the guns are always going to be the House.
Until some of the uber-rich join the great unwashed as victims of financial services
industry looting, the house has nothing to worry about.
-- -- --
It will happen but not on our schedule. Patience is a virtue.
I think there's a huge wall of cognitive dissonance and learned frames to overcome.
We have been trained to see the systems as orbits of institutions, and to assume there's
structures serving to keep them in line. Even when those break down, we still grant implicit
assumption that people work for institutions, not the other way around.
It remains invisible to most of the country that the system has evolved to legalize and
enable looting by sociopathic individuals on a massive-widespread-systematic-ongoing scale.
It's so simple, so pedestrian.. so un-American.
Yes. A must-read on that issue (the role of loose networks of individuals who play
multiple role, and how those alliances have come to dominate the power structure) is Janine
Wedel's The Shadow Elite.
First, largely I agree. It's important to highlight the role of individuals.
Second, the house doesn't win every single hand. It loses often, with very high variance.
In a way, that's part of the trick that keeps it from being obvious the house ultimately
always wins: because the house only wins on average.
So the TBTF institutions (qua institutions) can also act as the house, even if they had
lost the 2008 hand. Which, it should be noted, they didn't. "Absent the bailout, they would
have lost" almost misses the whole point.
The heads-I-win-tails-you-lose nature of the social guarantees and bailouts are
effectively an extremely valuable option. Whomever is getting those options for free is
acting analagous to the house.
I hate to break it to yee "New Deal "socialists but banking extraction is very much state
policy.
The state is the bank and the bank is the state.
We can easily see this as wealth is concentrated.
This is how it has worked since Tudor times.
The King is no longer divine and all that jazz.
The bank took its seat inside the Tabernacle.
And as they say the rest is history or was it the end of history ?
McMike un-American, or quintessentially American? Better yet, pandemic through history,
regardless of Empire? The hoorah Kool-Aid we get in our early years is strong stuff when we
cling to a false paradigm, such as , "American", it prevents us from moving into a new
paradigm and order. I mention how arcane our Constitution is to folks, how we can and should
re-tool for the 21st century and beyond, and folks recoil in horror. Is my concept, or their
reaction un-American? BTW, I can't imagine Chris Hedges, Sarah Palin, Karl Rove, Noam Chomsky
all in the same room hammering out a new Constitution. Why would they get the invite? Do we
have to abdicate our thinking to Proxy? Sure is easy to have little-and-declining hope these
days if one is paying even a bit of attention back to, Dancing with the Master Chefs! The
Kardashian-Jenners are guests!!
It is interesting how small a percentage of the citizenry is able to really remove the
Kool Aid induced veil over our eyes and really accept what this country is. I have friends
who have directed me NOT to discuss these "UnAmerican" issues with them ever again. They
simply will not countenance any discussion about how badly we are being ripped off by our
elected officials (and others, of course) in the District of Criminals. It doesn't matter how
some vote – not a partisan issue – it's the majority. Hooray for the Red, White
& Blue is, apparently, very compelling for the majority. Pass the clicker!
One of the better examples of short term extraction vs company future.
At Simmons, Bought, Drained and Sold, Then Sent to Bankruptcy
Oct 4, 2009 Left, the Simmons Bedding Company in early days. Right, Zalmon Its recent
history has been notable, too, but for a different reason. Simmons
Excellent post with a particularly concise description of the problem. I'm trying to
imagine how the system could have evolved to its current state without the repeal of
Glass-Steagall, but I can't. Your mention of Meriwether and Corzine makes my point. The
"managers" you refer to are able to create profit centers because of the discounted (and
subsidized) access to capital that TBTF banks receive from all of us. Left to fend for
themselves in the market for access to capital that us mere mortals conduct business, they
are no more than average.
The repeal of Glass Steagall was not the key event. Glass Steagall was a dead letter long
before it was repealed. Banks were already substantial participants in capital markets by
then. Credit Suisse (a bank) bought First Boston (a major investment bank and top bond
trader, of Salomon's stature) in 1988, 11 years before Glass Steagall was repealed.
If I had to single change that over time changed the industry most, it was the repeal in
1970 of the New York Stock Exchange rule that required all members to be partnerships.
For me, an outsider, the big change was the move on Wall Street, from the white shoe, golf
club leisure class to the Brooklyn hard scrabble, hungry guy. 1980s? 1970s?
The Brooklyn boys were eager, in a hurry, and had sharp elbows. This may be too broad but
– much of the damage done by The Street was perhaps done by such "boys," not the old
crowd of [HYP] Harvard-Yale-Princeton guys from top families.
If so, democratization of some industries doesn't always work.
The critical events began much earlier. Nixon closing the gold window and cementing the
special relationship with Saudi Arabia that tled the oil market to the dollar, giving the
largest banks access to essentially unlimited off shore deposits, as well as a magnificent
usury opportunity to plunder oil starved nations, activities which the Fed could not have
regulated if it wanted to. Money essentially ceased to exist as a store of value. Mega banks
could no longer be resolved, only bailed out. After 1973 only individuals and bit players
have been allowed to fail. As the amount of money in circulation mushroomed, it had nowhere
to go but transactions escalating asset values, particularly corporate asset values.
Successful looters gained control of the transaction machinery.
On the subject of the rich who lose money to looters, it is worth remembering that the
rich are not homogenous. There are the smart, amoral rich who will generally get richer and
there are also the dumb rich (sometimes the children of smart amoral rich) who the first
category regard as legitimate and extremely tempting prey. And as they are dumb, they
probably will never think or know how to do anything to redress their losses.
I came across some who clearly regarded it as a badge of honour to boast how much they had
lost through Madoff (presumably because it showed how much they had to lose initially). These
are the people who provide the basis for the (sometimes true) saying 'clogs to clogs in three
generations'.
I have been introduced to a new term – maximum company extractable value.
There seems to be no difference between the thoughts and actions of company leaders who know
the firm is going down.
The bailouts I don't think make much difference in their behavior, were the bailouts not
available.
I assume the thieves' notion of maximum extractable value means taking every cent out of what
is currently available.
Don Levit
"Maximum extractable value" -- savor the sounds here -- plenty of masculine consonants to
make the neurons stand up and tingle.
There must be an HBS course here. And certainly a B-school paper on the topic with plenty
of empiricals, especially gathered since the 2000s, the fertile times.
Also wealth here for a consulting practice built on this pillar. Impressive when a highly
paid young consultant throws it at you.
Your summary of the Akerlof and Romer paper sounds like an instruction manual for private
equity.
And as for who is the house? I remember flying into Las Vegas on Southwest Airlines one
day and after landing, the pilot came on and said "Welcome to Vegas! And for all of you
getting ready to gamble, please take a look out the right side of the plane. See those big,
gleaming, new fancy hotels? They weren't built with money from the winners."
I imagine if you take a similar plane ride into the Hamptons, you'll see equally
impressive mansions, and they also weren't built with money from the winners of the Wall St.
casino. So what's the difference? The hotels are owned by the casino corporations, while the
Hamptons mansions are owned by private individuals
These hotels were probably built with a little bit of money from the losers and a lot of
money from leverage IOW printed money from misallocation of capital if you believe that a
city based on gambling is a waste of resources and destructive to society over the mid to
long term.
The Finance and Bankster Offal, carefully backed up by "DogPatch-DC", who the ef* else!
Believing otherwise is like devoting fervent prayers to the Tooth Fairy! Apparently the rich
are often even dumber!
When the whole system has been so looted for so long – by decades of IBGYBG scam
artists – it is a dead man walking. It is time to change it. In a revolutionary
fashion. It might be good PR to throw the sleaziest traders in jail, but that isn't gonna
change anything fundamentally because fear of prosecution will just make the next gen
cleverer. A financial system that is uncorruptible seems like a fantasy though. When has
there ever been one? That very question could be the basis of new finance. Since nothing we
have tried so far has worked over the long run we need to look at the way human society
evolves and stay one step ahead of it – financially. Don't ask me how.
Do I hear a tune of desperation here -- "scam artists," "a dead man walking," "sleaziest
traders in jail", "fantasy"?
And change in "a revolutionary fashion"?
Actually, I don't think we've really explored economic alternatives here in the USA. Yeah,
some talked about socialism during the Real Depression. But mostly we've embroidered and
tinkered with our current set-up. So if we don't want socialism and capitalism is broken,
what's left?
Alternatives do exist to our current financial and economic systems. Unfortunately they
haven't received much in the way of PR, much less public discussion. For example, some here
have mentioned Gar Alperovitz.
But there are many other ideas. Maybe NakedCap can help spread these.
To some real extent, however, hasn't it always been a casino? In fact, the police who ran
the first stock traders off of Paris street corners understood this to be a fact, as did
those who rioted against them. At least, this is my recollection of. . . someone's account
(Henwood's? Maybe I picked this up in a lecture from Tom Weisskopf decades ago. . .) Would
love it if someone could point me to early accounts of these dealings because there would be
a lot to learn from them. . .
I think there's a tendency of reformist as opposed to structural analysts to posit this
perversion of something that was at one time good (the noble stock market has been turned
into a casino!). . . nah. Even the original notion of shared risk in the buying and selling
of shares is in no way a democratizing function, but a game for the one percent. (Of course,
it could be SOLD as such. . . )
"And the conundrum we have outlined means the people who call for prosecutions of
individuals are exactly right. Punishing firms is ineffective. Firms are fluid; key players
can and often do move around. And the culpability for bad practices typically resides both at
the producer level (the manager immediately responsible for the unit in which the bad conduct
took place) and more senior management (which typically benefits directly from any ill-gotten
profits, in terms of their compensation levels, and needs to be held responsible, even if
they were simply derelict in duty, as opposed to actively complicit)."
======================================================
So clearly put, so nicely explained. The American way – mistakes were made ..let's not
dwell in the past.
Seemed like a simple question with simple answer to me: The dealers are the house. Duh.
That's why they've been lobbying for this system for so long.
Agree that it's astounding that anyone who worked for McKinsey could be confused about
this issue.
You are of course right that there are certain individuals within the dealers who make the
most off of the system -- but something tells me you'd find the same basic phenomenon in the
casino business. "The house wins" doesn't mean that low-level employees of the house win, and
it doesn't mean that shareholders of the house win.
Came back to post something like this–the "house" is never as clear cut an entity in
gambling as it looks, either. Turns out the city fathers take their cut, local interests, the
Mafia has its hand in, the pols who cleared the way legally. . .
Not Pepe's best sauce, but always worth a read. He's best when he's reporting from the
field. His armchair geopolitics aren't that much better than anyone else's.
That said, Eurasian integration, Western Hemispheric energy independence, the populist
revolt against forced globalization/sovereignty elimination/kleptocracy and the outbreak of
global peace are all changing the chessboard profoundly. Most of the premises of traditional
imperialist power politics are simply blown away. Instead, a new 'Chinese Peace with Russian
Muscle' is the de facto hegemony in the vast bulk of the world, including parts of South
American and most of Africa. With the Brits and French too slow and stupid to react, the
Germans as weaselly and venal as ever, and the Japanese comatose, the hulk known as the G7 is
heeling over into full capsize mode. And, good riddance.
Now the G20 has to either stand up or collapse. Much depends on which outcome
develops.
However it works out, we can all stand and cheer that it is not a US dependent historical
course any more. We've ceded our moral and military leadership. Perhaps we can reform, even
if by bloody revolution, and re-emerge with something to give the rest of the world. Free
markets, liberty, democracy, freedom of thought......the future is now really a question of
whether any of these ideas will have a chance in a remade global order dominated, so far, by
dictatorship, corruption, and moral crime.
So, we tend to our own house now. Anyone got a pack of matches?
** We've ceded our moral and military leadership **
Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Benghazi, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Georgia, NATO expansion, the
Clintoons, the Bush dynasty of mediocrity, our open border, offshoring, Muslim ass kissing,
free-ranging Antifa filth, media monopoly and lies, foreigners taking university slots,
sexual confusion, ass kissing homosexuals, groveling before bat shit crazy feminists,
destruction of our basic legal document through judicial usurpation, diseased leftists
spouting lies and delusion, excusing black dysfunction, fiscal incontinence, unaddressd
monopolies, attacks on free speech, criminal immunity for elites, a president who won't
exercise his authority and tolerates insubordination, an unaccountable bureaucracy, a loose
cannon prosecutor, Jewish political domination, slobbering over Israel as though Jerusalem is
our capitol not Washington, denigration of the white majority culture, celebration of
miscegenation, degradation of marriage, our diseased educational establishment, rampant vote
fraud, illegal and unconstitutional wars, chest beating about "exceptionalism," and a
generally crap culture all say you're right.
There will be no sudden and dramatic collapse. There will only be a slow, painful,
never-ending, degrading decay into nothingness, a death from one million pundits, a process
readily apparent (literally) all around us. Tune in to CNN, see for yourself.
I see your point, but I am not convinced bankers work independently. Bankers do not have a
monopoly on psychotics. The psychotics in gov have as much greed and craving for power as the
bankers and I believe they work around, with, and against each other for various reasons just
like everything else in the world works. Thus a one dimensional theory will not be complete -
and maybe that is what you are arguing: to include bankers in geopolitics. I agree the
bankers are a big part of the rotten problem but like when I am overseas - I watch the guys
with the guns.
Most of the planet has put up with a lot of shit from America It's good that it's finally
coming to an end.
"We have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population... Our real task
in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain
this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we
will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming, and our attention will have to
be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive
ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world benefaction... We should
cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the
living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to
deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the
better."
George Kennan, State Department memo, 1948
America never gave up on the idealistic slogans -- the figleaf for the Empire of Chaos.
Finally shutting the fuck up after the game is over will be welcome.
"... Developing the tradition charted by C. Wright Mills in his 1956 classic The Power Elite , in his latest book, Professor Peter Phillips starts by reviewing the transition from the nation state power elites described by authors such as Mills to a transnational power elite centralized on the control of global capital. ..."
Developing the tradition charted by C. Wright Mills in his 1956 classic The Power Elite
, in his latest book, Professor Peter Phillips starts by reviewing the transition from the
nation state power elites described by authors such as Mills to a transnational power elite
centralized on the control of global capital.
Thus, in his just-released study Giants: The Global
Power Elite , Phillips, a professor of political sociology at Sonoma State University
in the USA, identifies the world's top seventeen asset management firms, such as BlackRock and
J.P Morgan Chase, each with more than one trillion dollars of investment capital under
management, as the 'Giants' of world capitalism. The seventeen firms collectively manage more
than $US41.1 trillion in a self-invested network of interlocking capital that spans the
globe.
This $41 trillion represents the wealth invested for profit by thousands of millionaires,
billionaires and corporations. The seventeen Giants operate in nearly every country in the
world and are 'the central institutions of the financial capital that powers the global
economic system'. They invest in anything considered profitable, ranging from 'agricultural
lands on which indigenous farmers are replaced by power elite investors' to public assets (such
as energy and water utilities) to war.
In addition, Phillips identifies the most important networks of the Global Power Elite and
the individuals therein. He names 389 individuals (a small number of whom are women and a token
number of whom are from countries other than the United States and the wealthier countries of
Western Europe) at the core of the policy planning nongovernmental networks that manage,
facilitate and defend the continued concentration of global capital. The Global Power Elite
perform two key uniting functions, he argues: they provide ideological justifications for their
shared interests (promulgated through their corporate media), and define the parameters of
action for transnational governmental organizations and capitalist nation-states.
More precisely, Phillips identifies the 199 directors of the seventeen global financial
Giants and offers short biographies and public information on their individual net wealth.
These individuals are closely interconnected through numerous networks of association including
the World Economic Forum, the International Monetary Conference, university affiliations,
various policy councils, social clubs, and cultural enterprises. For a taste of one of these
clubs, see this account of The Links in New York. As Phillips
observes: 'It is certainly safe to conclude they all know each other personally or know of each
other in the shared context of their positions of power.'
The Giants, Phillips documents, invest in each other but also in many hundreds of investment
management firms, many of which are near-Giants. This results in tens of trillions of dollars
coordinated in a single vast network of global capital controlled by a very small number of
people. 'Their constant objective is to find enough safe investment opportunities for a return
on capital that allows for continued growth. Inadequate capital-placement opportunities lead to
dangerous speculative investments, buying up of public assets, and permanent war spending.'
Because the directors of these seventeen asset management firms represent the central core
of international capital, 'Individuals can retire or pass away, and other similar people will
move into their place, making the overall structure a self-perpetuating network of global
capital control. As such, these 199 people share a common goal of maximum return on investments
for themselves and their clients, and they may seek to achieve returns by any means necessary
– legal or not . the institutional and structural arrangements within the money
management systems of global capital relentlessly seek ways to achieve maximum return on
investment, and the conditions for manipulations – legal or not – are always
present.'
Like some researchers before him, Phillips identifies the importance of those transnational
institutions that serve a unifying function. The World Bank, International Monetary Fund, G20,
G7, World Trade Organization (WTO),
World Economic Forum (WEF), Trilateral
Commission, Bilderberg Group ,
Bank for International Settlements, Group of 30 (G30), the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Monetary
Conference serve as institutional mechanisms for consensus building within the transnational
capitalist class, and power elite policy formulation and implementation. 'These international
institutions serve the interests of the global financial Giants by supporting policies and
regulations that seek to protect the free, unrestricted flow of capital and debt collection
worldwide.'
But within this network of transnational institutions, Phillips identifies two very
important global elite policy-planning organizations: the Group of Thirty (which has 32 members) and the extended executive
committee of the Trilateral Commission
(which has 55 members). These nonprofit corporations, which each have a research and support
staff, formulate elite policy and issue instructions for their implementation by the
transnational governmental institutions like the G7, G20, IMF, WTO, and World Bank. Elite
policies are also implemented following instruction of the relevant agent, including
governments, in the context. These agents then do as they are instructed. Thus, these 85
members (because two overlap) of the Group of Thirty and the Trilateral Commission comprise a
central group of facilitators of global capitalism, ensuring that 'global capital remains safe,
secure, and growing'.
So, while many of the major international institutions are controlled by nation-state
representatives and central bankers (with proportional power exercised by dominant financial
supporters such as the United States and European Union countries), Phillips is more concerned
with the transnational policy groups that are nongovernmental because these organizations 'help
to unite TCC power elites as a class' and the individuals involved in these organizations
facilitate world capitalism. 'They serve as policy elites who seek the continued growth of
capital in the world.'
Developing this list of 199 directors of the largest money management firms in the world,
Phillips argues, is an important step toward understanding how capitalism works globally today.
These global power elite directors make the decisions regarding the investment of trillions of
dollars. Supposedly in competition, the concentrated wealth they share requires them to
cooperate for their greater good by identifying investment opportunities and shared risk
agreements, and working collectively for political arrangements that create advantages for
their profit-generating system as a whole.
Their fundamental priority is to secure an average return on investment of 3 to 10 percent,
or even more. The nature of any investment is less important than what it yields: continuous
returns that support growth in the overall market. Hence, capital investment in tobacco
products, weapons of war, toxic chemicals, pollution, and other socially destructive goods and
services are judged purely by their profitability. Concern for the social and environmental
costs of the investment are non-existent. In other words, inflicting death and destruction are
fine because they are profitable.
So what is the global elite's purpose? In a few sentences Phillips characterizes it thus:
The elite is largely united in support of the US/NATO military empire that prosecutes a
repressive war against resisting groups – typically labeled 'terrorists' – around
the world. The real purpose of 'the war on terror' is defense of transnational globalization,
the unimpeded flow of financial capital around the world, dollar hegemony and access to oil; it
has nothing to do with repressing terrorism which it generates, perpetuates and finances to
provide cover for its real agenda. This is why the United States has a long history of CIA and
military interventions around the world ostensibly in defense of 'national
interests'.
An interesting point that emerges for me from reading Phillips thoughtful analysis is that
there is a clear distinction between those individuals and families who have wealth and those
individuals who have (sometimes significantly) less wealth (which, nevertheless, is still
considerable) but, through their positions and connections, wield a great deal of power. As
Phillips explains this distinction, 'the sociology of elites is more important than particular
elite individuals and their families'. Just 199 individuals decide how more than $40 trillion
will be invested. And this is his central point. Let me briefly elaborate.
There are some really wealthy families in the world, notably including the families
Rothschild (France and the United Kingdom), Rockefeller (USA), Goldman-Sachs (USA), Warburgs
(Germany), Lehmann (USA), Lazards (France), Kuhn Loebs (USA), Israel Moses Seifs (Italy),
Al-Saud (Saudi Arabia), Walton (USA), Koch (USA), Mars (USA), Cargill-MacMillan (USA) and Cox
(USA). However, not all of these families overtly seek power to shape the world as they
wish.
Similarly, the world's extremely wealthy individuals such as Jeff Bezos (USA), Bill Gates
(USA), Warren Buffett (USA), Bernard Arnault (France), Carlos Slim Helu (Mexico) and Francoise
Bettencourt Meyers (France) are not necessarily connected in such a way that they exercise
enormous power. In fact, they may have little interest in power as such, despite their obvious
interest in wealth.
In essence, some individuals and families are content to simply take advantage of how
capitalism and its ancilliary governmental and transnational instruments function while others
are more politically engaged in seeking to manipulate major institutions to achieve outcomes
that not only maximize their own profit and hence wealth but also shape the world itself.
So if you look at the list of 199 individuals that Phillips identifies at the centre of
global capital, it does not include names such as Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Koch, Walton or even
Rothschild, Rockefeller or Windsor (the Queen of England) despite their well-known and
extraordinary wealth. As an aside, many of these names are also missing from the lists compiled
by groups such as Forbes and
Bloomberg , but their
absence from these lists is for a very different reason given the penchant for many really
wealthy individuals and families to avoid certain types of publicity and their power to ensure
that they do.
In contrast to the names just listed, in Phillips' analysis names like Laurence (Larry) Fink
(Chairman and CEO of BlackRock), James (Jamie) Dimon (Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase) and
John McFarlane (Chairman of Barclays Bank), while not as wealthy as those listed immediately
above, wield far more power because of their positions and connections within the global elite
network of 199 individuals.
Predictably then, Phillips observes, these three individuals have similar lifestyles and
ideological orientations. They believe capitalism is beneficial for the world and while
inequality and poverty are important issues, they believe that capital growth will eventually
solve these problems. They are relatively non-expressive about environmental issues, but
recognize that investment opportunities may change in response to climate 'modifications'. As
millionaires they own multiple homes. They attended elite universities and rose quickly in
international finance to reach their current status as giants of the global power elite. 'The
institutions they manage have been shown to engage in illegal collusions with others, but the
regulatory fines by governments are essentially seen as just part of doing business.'
In short, as I would characterize this description: They are devoid of a legal or moral
framework to guide their actions, whether in relation to business, fellow human beings, war or
the environment and climate. They are obviously typical of the elite.
Any apparent concern for people, such as that expressed by Fink and Dimon in response to the
racist violence in Charlottesville, USA in August 2017, is simply designed to promote
'stability' or more precisely, a stable (that is, profitable) investment and consumer
climate.
The lack of concern for people and issues that might concern many of us is also evident from
a consideration of the agenda at elite gatherings. Consider the International Monetary
Conference. Founded in 1956, it is a private yearly meeting of the top few hundred bankers in
the world. The American Bankers Association (ABA) serves as the secretariat for the conference.
But, as Phillips notes: 'Nothing on the agenda seems to address the socioeconomic consequences
of investments to determine the impacts on people and the environment.' A casual perusal of the
agenda at any elite gathering reveals that this comment applies equally to any elite forum.
See, for example, the agenda of the recent WEF meeting in
Davos . Any talk of 'concern' is misleading rhetoric.
Hence, in the words of Phillips: The 199 directors of the global Giants are 'a very select
set of people. They all know each other personally or know of each other. At least 69 have
attended the annual World Economic Forum, where they often serve on panels or give public
presentations. They mostly attended the same elite universities, and interact in upperclass
social setting[s] in the major cities of the world. They all are wealthy and have significant
stock holdings in one or more of the financial Giants. They are all deeply invested in the
importance of maintaining capital growth in the world. Some are sensitive to environmental and
social justice issues, but they seem to be unable to link these issues to global capital
concentration.'
Of course, the global elite cannot manage the world system alone: the elite requires agents
to perform many of the functions necessary to control national societies and the individuals
within them. 'The interests of the Global Power Elite and the TCC are fully recognized by major
institutions in society. Governments, intelligence services, policymakers, universities, police
forces, military, and corporate media all work in support of their vital interests.'
In other words, to elaborate Phillips' point and extend it a little, through their economic
power, the Giants control all of the instruments through which their policies are implemented.
Whether it be governments, national military forces, 'military contractors' or mercenaries
(with at least $200 billion spent on private security globally, the industry currently employs
some fifteen million people worldwide) used both in 'foreign' wars but also likely deployed in
future for domestic control, key 'intelligence' agencies, legal systems and police forces,
major nongovernment organizations, or the academic, educational, 'public relations propaganda',
corporate media, medical, psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries, all instruments are fully
responsive to elite control and are designed to misinform, deceive, disempower, intimidate,
repress, imprison (in a jail or psychiatric ward), exploit and/or kill (depending on the
constituency) the rest of us, as is readily evident.
Defending Elite Power
Phillips observes that the power elite continually worries about rebellion by the 'unruly
exploited masses' against their structure of concentrated wealth. This is why the US military
empire has long played the role of defender of global capitalism. As a result, the United
States has more than 800 military bases (with some scholars suggesting 1,000) in 70 countries
and territories. In comparison, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia have about 30 foreign
bases. In addition, US military forces are now deployed in 70 percent of the world's nations
with US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) having troops in 147 countries, an increase of 80
percent since 2010. These forces conduct counterterrorism strikes regularly, including drone
assassinations and kill/capture raids.
'The US military empire stands on hundreds of years of colonial exploitation and continues
to support repressive, exploitative governments that cooperate with global capital's imperial
agenda. Governments that accept external capital investment, whereby a small segment of a
country's elite benefits, do so knowing that capital inevitably requires a return on investment
that entails using up resources and people for economic gain. The whole system continues wealth
concentration for elites and expanded wretched inequality for the masses .
'Understanding permanent war as an economic relief valve for surplus capital is a vital part
of comprehending capitalism in the world today. War provides investment opportunity for the
Giants and TCC elites and a guaranteed return on capital. War also serves a repressive function
of keeping the suffering masses of humanity afraid and compliant.'
As Phillips elaborates: This is why defense of global capital is the prime reason that NATO
countries now account for 85 percent of the world's military spending; the United States spends
more on the military than the rest of the world combined.
In essence, 'the Global Power Elite uses NATO and the US military empire for its worldwide
security. This is part of an expanding strategy of US military domination around the world,
whereby the US/ NATO military empire, advised by the power elite's Atlantic Council , operates in service to the
Transnational Corporate Class for the protection of international capital everywhere in the
world'.
This entails 'further pauperization of the bottom half of the world's population and an
unrelenting downward spiral of wages for 80 percent of the world. The world is facing economic
crisis, and the neoliberal solution is to spend less on human needs and more on security. It is
a world of financial institutions run amok, where the answer to economic collapse is to print
more money through quantitative easing, flooding the population with trillions of new
inflation-producing dollars. It is a world of permanent war, whereby spending for destruction
requires further spending to rebuild, a cycle that profits the Giants and global networks of
economic power. It is a world of drone killings, extrajudicial assassinations, death, and
destruction, at home and abroad.'
Where is this all heading?
So what are the implications of this state of affairs? Phillips responds unequivocally:
'This concentration of protected wealth leads to a crisis of humanity, whereby poverty, war,
starvation, mass alienation, media propaganda, and environmental devastation are reaching a
species-level threat. We realize that humankind is in danger of possible extinction'.
He goes on to state that the Global Power Elite is probably the only entity 'capable of
correcting this condition without major civil unrest, war, and chaos' and elaborates an
important aim of his book: to raise awareness of the importance of systemic change and the
redistribution of wealth among both the book's general readers but also the elite, 'in the hope
that they can begin the process of saving humanity.' The book's postscript is a 'A Letter to
the Global Power Elite', co-signed by Phillips and 90 others, beseeching the elite to act
accordingly.
'It is no longer acceptable for you to believe that you can manage capitalism to grow its
way out of the gross inequalities we all now face. The environment cannot accept more pollution
and waste, and civil unrest is everywhere inevitable at some point. Humanity needs you to step
up and insure that trickle-down becomes a river of resources that reaches every child, every
family, and all human beings. We urge you to use your power and make the needed changes for
humanity's survival.'
But he also emphasizes that nonviolent social movements, using the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights as a moral code, can accelerate the process of redistributing wealth by pressuring
the elite into action.
Conclusion
Peter Phillips has written an important book. For those of us interested in understanding
elite control of the world, this book is a vital addition to the bookshelf. And like any good
book, as you will see from my comments both above and below, it raised more questions for me
even while it answered many.
For this reason I do not share his faith in moral appeals to the elite, as articulated in
the letter in his postscript. It is fine to make the appeal but history offers no evidence to
suggest that there will be any significant response. The death and destruction inflicted by
elites is highly profitable, centuries-old and ongoing. It will take powerful,
strategically-focused nonviolent campaigns (or societal collapse) to compel the necessary
changes in elite behavior. Hence, I fully endorse his call for nonviolent social movements to
compel elite action where we cannot make the necessary changes without their involvement. See
'A Nonviolent Strategy to End Violence and Avert Human Extinction' and Nonviolent Campaign Strategy .
Fundamentally, Giants: The Global
Power Elite is a call to action. Professor Peter Phillips is highly aware of our
predicament – politically, socially, economically, environmentally and climatically
– and the critical role played by the global power elite in generating that
predicament.
If we cannot persuade the global power elite to respond sensibly to that predicament, or
nonviolently compel it to do so, humanity's time on Earth is indeed limited.
*
Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence.
He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are
violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of 'Why Violence?' His email address
is [email protected]
and his website is here . He is a frequent contributor to Global
Research.
"... There is consensus between commentators who have studied the effects of neo-liberalism that it has become all pervasive and is the key to ensuring that the rich remain rich, while the poor and the merely well to do continue on a perpetual hamster's wheel, going nowhere and never improving their lot in life while they serve their masters. ..."
"... Monbiot says of this largely anonymous scourge: "Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulations should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous, a reward for utility and a genera-tor of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve." ..."
"... Senior cadres co-opted Unfortunately, history shows that some key senior cadres of the ANC were all too keen to be coopted into the neo-liberal fold and any attempts to put forward radical measures that would bring something fresh to the table to address the massive inequalities of the past were and continue to be kept off the table and we are still endlessly fed the neo-liberal trickle-down baloney. ..."
SA is cursed with neo-liberal trickle-down baloney stifling radical economicchangeKevin Humphrey, The New Age, Johannesburg, 1 December 2016
South Africa's massive inequalities are abundantly obvious to even the most casual observer. When the ANC won the elections in
1994, it came armed with a left-wing pedigree second to none, having fought a protracted liberation war in alliance with progressive
forces which drew in organised labour and civic groupings.
At the dawn of democracy the tight knit tripartite alliance also carried in its wake a patchwork of disparate groupings who, while
clearly supportive of efforts to rid the country of apartheid, could best be described as liberal. It was these groupings that first
began the clamour of opposition to all left-wing, radical or revolutionary ideas that has by now become the constant backdrop to
all conversations about the state of our country, the economy, the education system, the health services, everything. Thus was the
new South Africa introduced to its own version of a curse that had befallen all countries that gained independence from oppressors,
neo-colonialism.
By the time South Africa was liberated, neo-colonialism, which as always sought to buy off the libera-tors with the political
kingdom while keep-ing control of the economic kingdom, had perfected itself into what has become an era where neo-liberalism reigns
supreme. But what exactly is neo-liberalism? George Monbiot says: "Neo-liberalism sees competi-tion as the defining characteristic
of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process
that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that 'the market' delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning."
Never improving
There is consensus between commentators who have studied the effects of neo-liberalism that it has become all pervasive and
is the key to ensuring that the rich remain rich, while the poor and the merely well to do continue on a perpetual hamster's wheel,
going nowhere and never improving their lot in life while they serve their masters.
Monbiot says of this largely anonymous scourge: "Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and
regulations should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade
unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is
recast as virtuous, a reward for utility and a genera-tor of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a
more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve."
Nelson Mandela
South Africa's sad slide into neo-liberalism was given impetus at Davos in 1992 where Nelson Mandela had this to say to the assembled
super rich: "We visualise a mixed economy, in which the private sector would play a central and critical role to ensure the creation
of wealth and jobs. Future economic policy will also have to address such questions as security of investments and the right to repatriate
earnings, realistic exchange rates, the rate of inflation and the fiscus."
Further insight into this pivotal moment was provided by Anthony Sampson, Mandela's official biographer who wrote: "It was not
until February 1992, when Mandela went to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that he finally turned against nationalisation.
He was lionised by the world's bankers and industrialists at lunches and dinners."
This is not to cast any aspersions on Mandela, he had to make these decisions at the time to protect our democratic transition.
But these utterances should have been accom-panied by a behind the scenes interrogation of all the ANC's thoughts on how to proceed
in terms of the economy delivering socialist orientated solutions without falling into the minefield of neo-liberal traps that lay
in wait for our emerging country.
Senior cadres co-opted Unfortunately, history shows that some key senior cadres of the ANC were all too keen
to be coopted into the neo-liberal fold and any attempts to put forward radical measures that would bring something fresh to the
table to address the massive inequalities of the past were and continue to be kept off the table and we are still endlessly fed the
neo-liberal trickle-down baloney.
Now no one dares to express any type of radical approach to our economic woes unless it is some loony populist. Debate around
these important issues is largely missing and the level of commentary on all important national questions is shockingly shallow.
Anti-labour, anti-socialist, anti-poor, anti-black The status quo as set by the largely white-owned media revolves
around key neo-liberal slogans mas-querading as commentary that is anti-labour, anti-socialist and anti-poor, which sadly translates
within our own context as anti-black and therefore repugnantly racist.
We live in a country where the black, over-whelmingly poor majority of our citizens have voted for a much revered liberation movement
that is constantly under attack from within and without by people who do not have their best interests at heart and are brilliant
at manipulating outcomes to suit themselves on a global scale.
Kevin Humphrey is associate executive editor of The New Age
"... Here is an except from "A Colony in a Nation" by Chris Hayes that she recently discussed (Chris Hayes is also the author of Twilight of the Elites ) ..."
"... ...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep sense we can appreciate as a former colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms of representation don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where the law is a tool of control rather than a foundation for prosperity. ..."
"... A Colony in a Nation is not primarily a history lesson, though it does provide a serious, empathetic look at the problems facing the Colony, as well as at the police officers tasked with making rapid decisions in a gun-rich environment. ..."
"... Elsewhere, Hayes examines his own experiences with the law, such as an incident when he was almost caught accidentally smuggling "about thirty dollars' worth of marijuana stuffed into my eyeglass case" into the 2000 Republican National Convention. Hayes got away without so much as a slap on the wrist, protected by luck, circumstances and privilege. ..."
Here is an except from "A Colony in a Nation" by Chris Hayes that she recently discussed (Chris
Hayes is also the author of Twilight of the Elites )
...we have built a colony in a nation, not in the classic Marxist sense but in the deep
sense we can appreciate as a former colony ourselves: A territory that isn't actually free. A
place controlled from outside rather than within. A place where the mechanisms of representation
don't work enough to give citizens a sense of ownership over their own government. A place where
the law is a tool of control rather than a foundation for prosperity.
... ... ...
A Colony in a Nation is not primarily a history lesson, though it does provide a serious,
empathetic look at the problems facing the Colony, as well as at the police officers tasked with
making rapid decisions in a gun-rich environment.
Hayes takes us through his less-than-successful experience putting himself in the latter's
shoes by trying out an unusual training tool, a virtually reality simulator: "We're only one scene
in, and already the self-righteous liberal pundit has drawn his weapon on an unarmed man holding
a cinder block."
Elsewhere, Hayes examines his own experiences with the law, such as an incident when he
was almost caught accidentally smuggling "about thirty dollars' worth of marijuana stuffed into
my eyeglass case" into the 2000 Republican National Convention. Hayes got away without so much
as a slap on the wrist, protected by luck, circumstances and privilege.
For black men living in the Colony, encounters with the police are much more fraught. Racial
profiling and minor infractions can lead to "being swept into the vortex of a penal system that
captures more than half the black men his age in his neighborhood... an adulthood marked by prison,
probation, and dismal job prospects...."
"... Further to my idea, what distinguishes the person on antidepressants is the complete self assurance with which they say the most ridiculous things. ..."
"... If one in ten people use the drugs, and more than one in ten higher up the social ladder, then each of us deals every day with someone who looks normal but displays chemically induced fanaticism. ..."
And you may be right. Scam artists know how easy it is to convince a mark of something
silly once the mark has dollar signs in his eyes.
Further to my idea, what distinguishes the person on antidepressants is the complete
self assurance with which they say the most ridiculous things. It is that inability to
say "I could be wrong, but " which is the giveaway plus of course the unquestioning belief
they are right.
If one in ten people use the drugs, and more than one in ten higher up the social
ladder, then each of us deals every day with someone who looks normal but displays chemically
induced fanaticism.
A chap I have known for forty years used to be shy, sensitive, well-read and funny. Now he
is spending his retirement playing World of Warcraft and has nothing to say. Big Pharma says
antidepressants turn introverts like him into extroverts. In fact the drugs have turned him
into a jerk.
We have no idea which of our 'opinion leaders' have undergone a similar change.
"... And now Davis, the Clinton fixer, is Michael Cohen's lawyer. The fixer defending a fixer. So who pays the bill? Well, ostensibly no-one, because Davis started a Go Fund Me campaign where people can donate so Cohen "can tell people the truth about Trump". The goal is $500,000. Which goes to .. Lanny Davis. ..."
"... On TV yesterday he apparently promoted a wrong URL , which was promptly picked up by someone else who had it redirect to the Trump campaign. Even fixers screw up, right? Still, there's already well over $100,000 donated for Cohen Davis. But why $500,000? One of the accusations against Cohen concerns lying to a bank for a $20 million loan. He bought an apartment not long ago for $6.7 million. He owned multiple apartments in Trump buildings. ..."
"... Did he lose everything when Robert Mueller et al raided his office, home and hotel room on April 9 2018? Were all his assets frozen? Possibly. What we do know is that he 'expected' the Trump campaign to pay for his legal fees. Which they declined. Or rather, as Fortune reported in June : "The Trump campaign has given some money to Cohen to help cover legal expenses for the Russia investigation. To date, though, it has not offered financial assistance in the investigation of his business practices." ..."
"... But anyway. So Lanny Davis, fixer of fixers and presidents, goes on a talk-show tour last night and what do you think happens? He walks back just about everything he's said the previous day. Aaron Maté made a list in this Twitter thread ..."
"... What do you think will happen when someone of the stature of Bob Mueller spends 18 months investigating the Clintons and their fixers? Perhaps the events of the past few days won't bring such a 2nd Special Counsel any closer, but by the same token they might do just that. Offense is the best defense. ..."
"... That is both dangerous in that the mandate of a Special Counsel should be limited lest it becomes endless and veers off the reasons it was initiated, as well as in the risk that it can easily turn into a party-political tool to hurt one's opponent while one's own dirt remains unscrutinized. ..."
"... In the end, I can draw only one conclusion: there are so many sharks and squids swimming in the swamp that either it should be expanded or the existing one should be cleaned up and depopulated. So bring it: investigate the FBI, the Clintons, and fixers like Lanny Davis and Michael Avenatti, the same way the Trump camp has been. ..."
If there's one thing that is exposed in the sorry not-so-fairy tale of former Trump aides Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, it's
that Washington is a city run by fixers. Who often make substantial amounts of money. Many though by no means all, start out as lawyers
and figure out that let's say 'the edges of what's legal' can be quite profitable.
And it helps to know when one steps across that edge, so having attended law school is a bonus. Not so much to stop when stepping
across the edge, but to raise one's fees. There's a lot of dough waiting at the edge of the law. None of this should surprise any
thinking person. Manafort and Cohen are people who think in millions, with an easy few hundred grand thrown in here and there.
But sometimes the fixers happen to come under scrutiny of the law, like when they get entangled in a Special Counsel investigation.
Both Manafort and Cohen now rue the day they became involved with Trump, or rather, the day he was elected president and solicited
much more severe scrutiny.
Would either ever have been accused of what they face today had Trump lost to Hillary? It's not too likely. They just gambled
and lost. But there are many more just like them who will never be charged with anything. Still, a new fixer name has popped up the
last few days who may, down the line, not be so lucky.
And that's not even because Lanny Davis is a registered foreign agent for Dmytro Firtash, a pro-Russia Ukrainian oligarch wanted
by the US government. After all, both Manafort and Cohen have their contacts in that part of the world. Manafort made tens of millions
advising then-president Yanukovich in the Ukraine before the US coup dethroned the latter. Cohen's wife is Ukrainian-American.
Lanny Davis is a lawyer, special counsel even, for the Clintons. Has been for years. Which makes it kind of curious that Michael
Cohen would pick him to become his legal representation. But that's not all Davis is involved in. Like any true fixer, he has his
hands in more cookie jars than fit in the average kitchen. Glenn Greenwald wrote this in August 2009 about the health care debate:
After Tom Daschle was selected to be Barack Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services and chief health care adviser, Matt
Taibbi wrote: "In Washington there are whores and there are whores, and then there is Tom Daschle." One could easily have added:
"And then there's Lanny Davis." Davis frequently injects himself into political disputes, masquerading as a "political analyst"
and Democratic media pundit, yet is unmoored from any discernible political beliefs other than: "I agree with whoever pays me."
It's genuinely difficult to recall any instance where he publicly defended someone who hadn't, at some point, hired and shuffled
money to him. Yesterday, he published a new piece simultaneously in The Hill and Politico – solemnly warning that extremists on
the Far Left and Far Right are jointly destroying democracy with their conduct in the health care debate and urging "the vast
center-left and center-right of this country to speak up and call them out equally" – that vividly illustrates the limitless whoring
behavior which shapes Washington generally and specifically drives virtually every word out of Lanny Davis' mouth.
Davis' history is as long and consistent as it is sleazy. He was recently hired by Honduran oligarchs opposed to that country's
democratically elected left-wing President and promptly became the chief advocate of the military coup which forcibly removed
the President from office. He became an emphatic defender of the Israeli war on Gaza after he was named by the right-wing The
Israel Project to be its "Senior Advisor and Spokesperson." He has been the chief public defender for Joe Lieberman, Jane Harman
and the Clintons, all of whom have engaged his paid services.
And as NYU History Professor Greg Grandin just documented: "Recently, Davis has been hired by corporations to derail the labor-backed
Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for unions to organize, all the while touting himself as a "pro-labor liberal."
Davis was also the chief U.S. lobbyist of the military dictatorship in Pakistan in the late 90s and played an important role in
strengthening relations between then President Bill Clinton and de facto president General Perez Musharraf."
Trending Articles Majority Of Young Americans Live In A Household Receiving
New analysis from CNS News finds that the majority of Americans under 18 live in households that take "means-tested
There's much more in that article, but you get the drift. And now Davis, the Clinton fixer, is Michael Cohen's lawyer. The fixer
defending a fixer. So who pays the bill? Well, ostensibly no-one, because Davis started a Go Fund Me campaign where people can donate
so Cohen "can tell people the truth about Trump". The goal is $500,000. Which goes to .. Lanny Davis.
On TV yesterday
he apparently promoted a wrong URL , which was promptly picked up by someone else who had it redirect to the Trump campaign.
Even fixers screw up, right? Still, there's already well over $100,000 donated for Cohen Davis. But why $500,000? One of the
accusations against Cohen concerns lying to a bank for a $20 million loan. He bought an apartment not long ago for $6.7 million.
He owned multiple apartments in Trump buildings.
Did he lose everything when Robert Mueller et al raided his office, home and hotel room on April 9 2018? Were all his assets frozen?
Possibly. What we do know is that he 'expected' the Trump campaign to pay for his legal fees. Which they declined. Or rather, as
Fortune reported in June : "The
Trump campaign has given some money to Cohen to help cover legal expenses for the Russia investigation. To date, though, it has not
offered financial assistance in the investigation of his business practices."
It seems safe to assume that's the point where Cohen turned, or was turned, to Lanny Davis. From a full decade of being Trump's
fixer to being fixed by the Clintons' fixer. That's a big move. It raises a number of questions :
First, why did Trump not pay Cohen's legal fees? This is 2 months after the raid on the man's office, home, hotel room, in
which huge amounts of files and disks etc. were seized.
Second question: if Lanny Davis only now sets up a Go Fund Me campaign, who's been paying him over the past 2 months? Did Cohen
sell assets, or is someone else involved?
Anyway, so Davis goes on TV with big words about how Cohen will tell all about Trump -provided people donate half a million- and
adding "I know that Mr. Cohen would never accept a pardon from a man that he considers to be both corrupt and a dangerous person
in the oval office. And [Cohen] has flatly authorized me to say under no circumstances would he accept a pardon from Mr. Trump."
Oh, and that "the turning point for his client's attitude toward Trump was the Helsinki summit in July 2018 which caused him to
doubt Trump's loyalty to the U.S." That, to my little brain, doesn't sound like something that would come from Cohen. That sounds
more like a political point the likes of which Cohen has never made. That's plain old Russiagate.
But anyway. So Lanny Davis, fixer of fixers and presidents, goes on a talk-show tour last night and what do you think happens?
He walks back just about everything he's said the previous day. Aaron Maté made a list in this Twitter thread:
1/ In a few minutes of airtime today, Michael Cohen attorney Lanny Davis has rejected a key Steele dossier claim, and, more
significantly I think, the basis for all of the ceaseless, frenzied speculation that Cohen has something to offer Mueller on Trump-Russia
collusion:
3/ Right after, Davis walks back his already heavily qualified innuendo to
@ Maddow -- which generated endless chatter -- about Cohen being useful
to Mueller's probe on collusion & knowing of hacking. Now Davis claims he was "tentative", that Cohen "may or may not be useful",
etc:
4/ Earlier in the day, Davis also asserted that Cohen was "never, ever" in Prague -- undermining a key claim in the Steele
dossier that he went there in August/September 2016 as part of the collusion scheme:
https:// twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/st atus/1032427395993624576
6/ So in short: Lanny Davis has not just denied what was explosively alleged about Cohen-Trump by Steele, CNN, and McClatchy,
but has also walked back the explosive speculation about Cohen-Trump that Lanny Davis himself generated.
Is Michael Cohen sure he wants this guy as his lawyer? Is he watching this stuff?
If Cohen and Manafort have broken laws, they should be punished for it. The same goes for all other Trump campers, including the
Donald. But it would be good if people realize that Cohen and Manafort are not some kind of stand-alone examples, that they are instead
the norm in Washington. And Moscow, and Brussels, London, everywhere there's a concentration of power. In all these places, and probably
more so in DC, there are these folks specializing in the edge of the law.
What do you think will happen when someone of the stature of Bob Mueller spends 18 months investigating the Clintons and their
fixers? Perhaps the events of the past few days won't bring such a 2nd Special Counsel any closer, but by the same token they might
do just that. Offense is the best defense.
I don't know, we don't know, what monsters Trump has swept under his luxurious carpets. But we do know that those are not the
only monsters in Washington. Meanwhile, the Steele dossier that was used to start the entire Mueller remains just about entirely
unverified. The Russian collusion meme he was tasked with investigating has so far come up empty.
That he would find something if he tried hard enough was obvious from the start. That is both dangerous in that the mandate of
a Special Counsel should be limited lest it becomes endless and veers off the reasons it was initiated, as well as in the risk that
it can easily turn into a party-political tool to hurt one's opponent while one's own dirt remains unscrutinized.
In the end, I can draw only one conclusion: there are so many sharks and squids swimming in the swamp that either it should be
expanded or the existing one should be cleaned up and depopulated. So bring it: investigate the FBI, the Clintons, and fixers like
Lanny Davis and Michael Avenatti, the same way the Trump camp has been.
Because if you don't do that, you can only possibly end up in an even bigger mess. You can't drain half a swamp.
The antagonism between Saudi Arabia and Iran sets off a variety of political reverberations
affecting the countries of the Persian Gulf, unsettling the situation between Turkey, Syria,
and Iraq, and entangling Russia and the United States in the ensuring imbroglio.
... ... ...
The role of the Russian Federation cannot be viewed apart from what is happening in the
energy-rich, formerly Soviet Central Asian republics. The so-called -Stans (Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan) are major players in today's energy markets. Whatever
they do, however, cannot be seen as separate from what Russia is doing or from Russia's
intentions. Although some of them, primarily Azerbaijan, have initiated projects that are not
aligned with Moscow's goals, they nevertheless need to behave in ways that do not upset their
powerful northern neighbour on whom they are heavily reliant, to some extent, for their welfare
(due to their dependence on oil and gas pipeline networks).
Politics is therefore deeply intertwined with energy in most of those cases, bringing
diplomacy front and centre as a determinant of behaviour and economic outcomes.
... ... ...
Europe's problem is that, with the exception of North Sea oil and gas, it relies entirely on
imports to provide it with a comfortable level of energy. Thus, events in the Middle East and
the Russian stance toward the continent determines whether it is adequately supplied with
energy or faces shortages.
The deposits in the North Sea have kept some European states (Britain and Scandinavia among
others) well supplied for quite a while. But unfortunately there is a strong suspicion that
these deposits are diminishing at a dangerous rate. As a result Europe will gradually become
dependent on imports from the Middle East, North Africa, Russia, and the Atlantic (Angola,
Brazil, Mexico, and the US). The situation is disquieting since Japan, and more recently,
China, are seeking to buy their own supplies from the same sources.
"...Things started to change after the fracking and shale gas revolution. The United
States suddenly realized that it could not only became absolutely self-sufficient in oil and
gas, but it also emerged as one of the most important exporters to the rest of the
world..."
Ths is factually untrue. The US still depends on crude oil imports to meet its needs. And
if this simple, verifiable fact is misunderstood by the author, then I have to wonder about
the rest of his analysis...
From the middle of the last century to the present, everything has been about oil. The
peak oilers were correct. What they did not consider was the power of debt to hold this whole
thing together long after it should have collapsed. Shale oil is not profitable. That does
not mater as long as debt underwrites the cost of production. What does matter is the rapid
decline rate of shale oil wells. Yes it is true that shale wells are continuing to produce
long after they have reached their peak but it is the volume of production that matters.
If you read the projections put out by the Hirsch Report, the Llyiods Report and the
Bundeswehr Report, things should get interesting in the next couple of years.
History has a velocity of its own, and its implacable forces
will
drag
the good, the bad, the clueless, the clever, the guilty, the
innocent, the avid, and the unwilling to a certain fate.
One
can easily see a convergence of vectors shoving the nation
toward political criticality this autumn.
Mr. Trump is like some unfortunate dumb brute of the ancient
Teutonic forests with a bulldog clamped to his nose, the rest of
the pack close behind snapping at his hamstrings and soft,
swaying underbelly.
His
desperate bellowing goes unanswered by the indifference of the
trees in forest, the cold moon above, and all the other
furnishings of his tragic reality.
As these things tend to happen, it looks like the exertions of
Robert Mueller have turned from the alleged grave offenses of a
foreign enemy to the sequela of consort with a floozie. Down
goes Mr. Trump's private attorney, Michael Cohen, in his
personal swamp of incriminating files and audio recordings.
Enter, stage left, one David Pecker, publisher of the venerable
National
Enquirer
-- the newspaper of wreckage -- on his slime-trail
of induced testimony. And there is your impeachable offense: an
illegal campaign contribution.
ne way or another
, as Blondie used to sing,
I'm gonna getcha, getcha, getcha
.
Some in this greatest of all possible republics may be asking
themselves if this is quite fair play, given the hundreds of
millions of dollars washed-and-rinsed through the laundromat
known as the Clinton Foundation, and related suspicious doings
in that camp of darkness. But remember, another president, Jimmy
Carter, once declared to the shock of official Washington that
"life
is unfair."
What I wonder is what these dogs of vengeance reckon will happen
when they achieve their goal of bringing down the bellowing bull
and pulling his guts out.
Perhaps a few moments of
tribal satisfaction, one last war dance around the fire, and
when the fire dies out, they will find themselves under the same
cold indifferent moon with blood on their snouts and an ill wind
blowing in the tree tops.
After two years of fomenting hysteria, the "winners" will
discern the reality behind all the melodrama:
the
financialization rackets that replaced what used to be the
economy have come unglued, and institutions begin to fail left
and right
: banks, pension funds, corporations, state
and municipal governments, federal promises to pay this and
that, and, in general, the ability of the USA to carry on
anything approximating what might be considered normal life.
It will be interesting to see how the impeachment of Donald
Trump plays as all this goes down.
My
guess is that the people warning about a second civil war are
not far off the mark.
The final consequence of a
political-economy based on the proposition that
anything
goes and nothing matters
will be the rueful discovery that
consequences actually exist, and
consequently
that
anything can't go and some things really do matter: like whether
or not money is actually worth what it says it's worth.
That issue will surely be determined by whether the borrowers of
money can possibly pay back what they owe. The discovery that
it's impossible will coincide with whatever the legal fate of
Donald Trump's presidency might be. The result of all this is
apt to be a political nightmare of bankruptcy and bloodshed that
makes the first civil war (1861-1865) look like a tale of
knighthood in flower.
Our national living arrangements are far too fragile.
The
players on both sides of this dire game must assume that the
trappings of American life are sturdy, and they are quite wrong
about that. Personalities are not in control anymore. Murphy's
law rules, and we're about to find out how that law differs from
the federal election statutes and the humdrum business of
indicting ham sandwiches just because they're out there on the
table.
"... But to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare. This global trade war is spearheaded by the Trump White House, which sees trade sanctions and tariffs, such as the onslaught it launched against Turkey, as an integral component of its drive to secure the United States' geopolitical and economic interests at the expense of friend and foe alike. ..."
"... But while they are deeply divided as to their economic and geo-political objectives, the capitalist ruling classes are united on one essential question. However the next stage of the ongoing breakdown of world capitalism proceeds, they will all strive by whatever means considered necessary to make the working class the world over pay for it. ..."
"... In 2008, capitalist governments around the world, above all in the US, derived enormous benefit from the decades-long suppression of the class struggle by the trade unions and the parties of the political establishment. The rescue operation they carried out on behalf of parasitic and criminal finance capital would not have been possible without it ..."
"But to an extent hardly imaginable in 2008, all the world's leading economies are locked
in a perpetually escalating cycle of economic warfare. This global trade war is spearheaded
by the Trump White House, which sees trade sanctions and tariffs, such as the onslaught it
launched against Turkey, as an integral component of its drive to secure the United States'
geopolitical and economic interests at the expense of friend and foe alike.
The character of world economy has undergone a major transformation in the past decade in
which economic growth, to the extent it that it occurs, is not driven by the development of
production and new investments but by the flow of money from one source of speculative and
parasitic activity to the next."
"But while they are deeply divided as to their economic and geo-political objectives, the
capitalist ruling classes are united on one essential question. However the next stage of the
ongoing breakdown of world capitalism proceeds, they will all strive by whatever means
considered necessary to make the working class the world over pay for it.
This is the lesson from the past decade which, in every country, has seen a deepening
attack on wages, social conditions and living standards as wealth is redistributed up the
income scale, raising social inequality to unprecedented heights.
In 2008, capitalist governments around the world, above all in the US, derived enormous
benefit from the decades-long suppression of the class struggle by the trade unions and the
parties of the political establishment. The rescue operation they carried out on behalf of
parasitic and criminal finance capital would not have been possible without it."
US neocons and neolibs behave like a wounded animal, or cornered rats.
Notable quotes:
"... Ironically, the new neocon-shaped think tank alliance is no more interested in what it claims to want, namely democracy, than its former Soviet rulers were. AEI has attacked Britain's decision to leave the European Union as symptomatic of "populist attacks on traditional structures of international affairs such as the EU and international trade regimes." It is in this context, we are told, that NATO has "appeared to be a second-rate concern" and that the globalization that "ushered in unprecedented worldwide growth" has been placed in peril. ..."
"... Moreover, who are these "authoritarian" bad guys that CAP now has in its crosshairs and plans to rid the world of with its new neocon pals? Presumably it's the right-of-center governments in Eastern and Central Europe, as personified by favorite leftist whipping boy Viktor Orban ..."
"... All AEI and CAP have done is to take a multitude of grievances -- e.g., America's failing to oppose adequately China's cyberthreats, putting up with Russia's aggression, "security threats" in general, and nuclear proliferation -- and mixed them together with standard leftist boilerplate about Orban's "illiberalism" and "sharing our values." This, of course, is indicative of the neocon tactic of linking whatever its advocates see fit to address to a supposed common purpose, which is saving democracy from whatever is defined as "antidemocratic." ..."
"... What's new about the AEI/CAP "partnership of peril," however, is the degree of collaboration taking place and the unmistakable whiff of "never Trump" among their scholars and writers. ..."
"... This recalls all too vividly the Soviet practice of purging "undemocratic" -- that is, uncongenial -- governments while taking over Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War. Today it's an establishment think tank world where governments elected fairly by their people are declared not democratic enough. ..."
"... Curiously, they don't find mass surveillance by the NSA, militarization of the police, permanent war, or the kind of government-imposed humiliations we experience in airports these days to be the least bit "authoritarian", all of them byproducts of incompetent or treacherous neocon and neoliberal control-freaks. ..."
"... They're still pretending they don't get it. Populists aren't the problem. Populists reacted to the problem. The problem is the staggering damage that neocons and neoliberals have done to the West. The problem is how to rid ourselves of them. ..."
Two big Washington think tanks have teamed up to
defend democracy against an 'assault on the transatlantic community.' For several months,
an alliance has been forming between the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
and the neoliberal Center for American Progress (CAP). It's the sort of kumbaya not witnessed
since wartime Washington a decade ago.
A press release from CAP on May 10 blares: "CAP and AEI Team up to Defend Democracy and
Transatlantic Partnership." The same joyous tidings accompanied a
public statement issued by AEI on July 31, which stressed that the alliance was meant to
resist "the populist assault on the transatlantic community" for the purpose of "defending
democracy."
Although, according to Vikram Singh, a senior fellow at CAP, the two partners "often
disagree on important policy questions," they have been driven together "at a time when the
character of our societies is at stake." This burgeoning cooperation underscores that "our
commitment to democracy and core democratic principles is stronger than ever." Since both
documents fling around the terms "democracy" and "liberal democracy" to justify a meddlesome
foreign policy, we may safely assume that the neocons are behind this project. Neocons for some
time now have prefixed their intended aggressions with "democracy" and "liberal democracy" the
way the Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs during the 16th and 17th centuries stuck the word "holy"
into the names of their wartime alliances. Closer to our time, communist governments favored
the use of "people's democracy" to indicate that they were the good guys. Presumably the
neocons have now picked up this habit of nomenclature.
Ironically, the new neocon-shaped think tank alliance is no more interested in what it
claims to want, namely democracy, than its former Soviet rulers were. AEI has attacked
Britain's decision to leave the European Union as symptomatic of "populist attacks on
traditional structures of international affairs such as the EU and international trade
regimes." It is in this context, we are told, that NATO has "appeared to be a second-rate
concern" and that the globalization that "ushered in unprecedented worldwide growth" has been
placed in peril. Leaving aside other critical
analyses of globalism that call into question AEI's enthusiasm for neoliberal economics,
the more relevant question is: why is it "undemocratic" for a nation to vote in favor of
leaving the EU? And for that matter, why is it "undemocratic" for countries to reconsider their
membership in NATO?
Moreover, who are these "authoritarian" bad guys that CAP now has in its crosshairs and
plans to rid the world of with its new neocon pals? Presumably it's the right-of-center
governments in Eastern and Central Europe, as personified by favorite leftist whipping boy
Viktor Orban . Although CAP doesn't want to be especially "confrontational" in dealing
with its villains, or so it claims, it also proclaims that "authoritarian regimes pursue
different objectives than societies with governments that are accountable to the people and
respect the rule of law." It might be useful for CAP to tell us how exactly Hungary, Poland,
and other right-of-center European governments have not been democratically elected and have
disrespected their countries' legal traditions.
Fortunately our think tank alliance is in still in no position (heaven be thanked!) to
impose its will. The most these hysterical complainers can do is air their grievances and
misrepresent them as somehow "preserving democracy." All AEI and CAP have done is to take a
multitude of grievances -- e.g., America's failing to oppose adequately China's cyberthreats,
putting up with Russia's aggression, "security threats" in general, and nuclear proliferation
-- and mixed them together with standard leftist boilerplate about Orban's "illiberalism" and
"sharing our values." This, of course, is indicative of the neocon tactic of linking whatever
its advocates see fit to address to a supposed common purpose, which is saving democracy from
whatever is defined as "antidemocratic."
For those who wonder what AEI, as a supposedly right-of-center foundation, is doing hanging
out with CAP, such hobnobbing between Republican policy foundations and left-of-center tanks
has been going on for a while. In December 2015, AEI and Brookings both proudly announced their
cooperation in drafting a poverty
program that emphatically diverged from the one proposed by then-candidate Trump. Both
foundations called for, among other reforms, raising the minimum wage and greater government
guidance for poor families.
What's new about the AEI/CAP "partnership of peril," however, is the degree of
collaboration taking place and the unmistakable whiff of "never Trump" among their scholars and
writers. It would also appear that as the price of collaboration, AEI has been required to
join its more leftist partner in going after democratically elected right-of-center political
leaders in Europe. This recalls all too vividly the Soviet practice of purging
"undemocratic" -- that is, uncongenial -- governments while taking over Eastern Europe at the
end of the Second World War. Today it's an establishment think tank world where governments
elected fairly by their people are declared not democratic enough.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown
College, where he taught for 25 years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale Ph.D. He is the
author of 13 books, most recently Fascism:
Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents . 20 Responses to Neocons and Liberals Join
Forces to Fight Populism
"Moreover, who are these "authoritarian" bad guys that CAP now has in its crosshairs and
plans to rid the world of with its new neocon pals?"
Curiously, they don't find mass surveillance by the NSA, militarization of the police,
permanent war, or the kind of government-imposed humiliations we experience in airports these
days to be the least bit "authoritarian", all of them byproducts of incompetent or treacherous
neocon and neoliberal control-freaks.
Which is why the normal mind guffaws at the though of neocons and neoliberals banding
together to fight "authoritarianism".
They're still pretending they don't get it. Populists aren't the problem. Populists
reacted to the problem. The problem is the staggering damage that neocons and neoliberals have
done to the West. The problem is how to rid ourselves of them.
I am not really surprised. What goes on in Eastern Europe is controversial and it will catch
attention of all sides. Hungary and Poland are peripheries of a bigger political-economic area,
so they will have to take this into account
What's at stake for both think tanks is the continuance of US global hegemony, whether for its
own sake or as an essential tool to prop up Israel. Ironically, the same US ideological
"family" promoted the very populism they are now condemning for the purpose of breaking up the
very same EU whose possible demise they now regard as a disaster! Equally, Professor Gottfried
and his VDare friends themselves peddle the anti-EU/pro-Putin line and are therefore in no
position to criticize the two think tanks for promoting "a meddlesome foreign policy". Indeed,
the way in which Professor Gottfried takes a position in the article for or against this or
that European government is a perfect example of his belief in a "meddlesome foreign policy".
He just doesn't like the particular form of meddling that the think tanks are proposing.
Foreign affairs and domestic policy are intertwined in the hostility to populism. AEI supports
quasi-open borders, so no surprise that they view populism as a scourge.
A pro-populist strategy, specifically on the immigration front, suggests itself if we
distinguish between Deep State-compatible immigration *restrictionism* and Deep
State-incompatible immigration *patriotism*. The latter is a form of populist nationalism.
(That phrase isn't redundant because there can surely be non-populist forms of nationalism.)
For the former, note that the Deep State can, if anything, operate better in a society without
continual ethnic minority- pleading.
Jeff Sessions is an immigration restrictionist; Stephen Miller is an immigration
patriot.
The think tank anti-populism is part of the Deep State's effort to ensure that the Mueller
investigation go forward as the best way of hindering Trump's populist instincts and the
policies that it fears will flow from them.
My initial reaction to the headline and first few sentences was: "They are frightened. Good!"
Since the first order of any organization is to survive, no matter what, each is now abandoning
its original (stated) purpose to align with the other. "The Populists are coming! The Populists
are coming!"
I think it's funny using terms like "liberal", "neo-liberal", "neo-conservative". They are all
ideologies whose fundamental motive is to maximize corporate profits at the expense of the
working American. There's no reason to distinguish between them.
" why is it "undemocratic" for a nation to vote in favor of leaving the EU? And for that
matter, why is it 'undemocratic' for countries to reconsider their membership in NATO?"
The documents don't say these things are undemocratic. The documents claim that
authoritarian populists attack international cooperation.
"It might be useful for CAP to tell us how exactly Hungary, Poland, and other
right-of-center European governments have disrespected their countries' legal traditions."
They have. If you put "Viktor Orban" and "Poland" in the search box on their website you'll
find it.
There has been no significant difference between Democrats and Republicans in my six decades.
Trump was a breath of fresh air although he hasn't moved far enough to repudiate the
establishment.
Laughing. Sure, until they want to adovcate for another regime change campaign, then it will
about people, for people all day long to get them on board.
Until then they won't be happy until the US reflects asian caste systems of social
polity.
In addition to putting Mr. Orban's "illiberalism" in mocking quotes, this melange of
conspiracy mongering finds yet more sinister neocon plotting in the AEI/Hudson connection --
which, if you follow Gottfried's link, turns out to surprisingly free of Soviet-era purges,
even though it departs from anything proposed by The Stable Genius in Chief.
If the author doesn't think left-wing critics of globalism (Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders,
Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the Latin American "pink" revolutionaries -- well, reformists -- and
the anti-WTO/IMF/World Bank anti-globalists, among others), he's fooling himself. It was the
farther left, after all, and the unions who often led the fights to vote against joining first
the Eurozone and then the EU, and who have opposed the American elite's various free trade
deals, forcing previous deals between neo-liberals and free market conservatives (e.g., NAFTA,
Clinton and the GOP).
Soooo You think White Identitarian populism is good for the WEST see History. Ha! Whats coming
down the PIKE is more wars, conflicts, tribalism, and DEATH. And this is just the Western
Nations (Whites). Populism is not Racial Idealism. Poor whites CONNED again, like always. Good
Fences make better neighbors, and NIMBY!
Neocons and liberals have always had a lot in common. They both want:
-- Globalism
-- open borders
-- anti-Russia, Iran
-- American hegemony which means endless wars
-- support for gay marriage
-- anti-Nationalism hence anti-Trump
The only thing that separated them were gun control and abortion, but even those issues aren't
as clearcut anymore.
So the people who gave us an America of 'Your Papers, Please!!' and 'Shut Up and Bend Over' are
getting worried about the threat of authoritarianism.
Poor babies.
They want their "democracy" back, don't you know, with its black sites, endless wars, its
torture and fiat assassination regime, its hate speech laws, its warrantless surveillance
programs, and the highest incarceration rates in the world.
I suspect you're an academic with tenure already in the bag notwithstanding your way of
talking. So tell me, how is the anti-White identitarianism going in South Africa, for the
average non-white South African? And why is the anti-White government failing so miserably?
"... not all forms of economic liberalization are equally good: some reforms can be so inadequately designed as to harm the interests of the poor, especially in the short term. ..."
"... This raises the questions: Are the poor better off under a market economy? Is the invisible hand conducive to giving people a hand? Pope Francis's assessment is often negative. "[U]nbridled capitalism," he has claimed, "has taught the logic of profit at any cost, of giving in order to receive, of exploitation without looking at the person." ..."
Societies marked by oligarchy, that is, rigged to help the privileged elites at the expense of everyone else, require more than
merely the removal of anti-competitive rules and regulations. The reason, according to Martinez, is that not all forms of economic
liberalization are equally good: some reforms can be so inadequately designed as to harm the interests of the poor, especially in
the short term.
This raises the questions: Are the poor better off under a market economy? Is the invisible hand conducive to giving people a
hand? Pope Francis's assessment is often negative. "[U]nbridled capitalism," he has claimed, "has taught the logic of profit at any
cost, of giving in order to receive, of exploitation without looking at the person."
...Although the pope is on target in his admonition against worshipping the false god of a "deified market," according to Waterman,
his encyclical Laudato si' is flawed, due in no small measure to its failure to acknowledge the good that markets do by
channeling self-interest to serve the common good.
No matter how globalism is repackaged, it always smells the same way in the end.
For decades, the globalists have subtly (or sometimes not so subtly) been moving us toward a
world in which national borders have essentially been made meaningless . The ultimate goal, of
course, is to merge all the nations of the world into a "one world socialist utopia" with a
global government, a global economic system and even a global religion.
The European Union is a model for what the elite hope to achieve eventually on a global
scale . The individual nations still exist, but once inside the European Union you can travel
wherever you want, economic rules have been standardized across the Union, and European
institutions now have far more power than the national governments.
Liberty and freedom have been greatly restricted for the "common good", and a giant horde of
nameless, faceless bureaucrats constantly micromanages the details of daily life down to the
finest details.
With each passing day the EU becomes more Orwellian in nature, and that is why so many in
Europe are completely fed up with it.
We are in a very peculiar ideological and political place in which Democracy (oh sainted
Democracy) is a very good thing, unless the voters reject the technocrat class's leadership.
Then the velvet gloves come off. From the perspective of the elites and their technocrat
apparatchiks, elections have only one purpose: to rubberstamp their leadership.
As a general rule, this is easily managed by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on
advertising and bribes to the cartels and insider fiefdoms who pony up most of the cash.
This is why incumbents win the vast majority of elections. Once in power, they issue the
bribes and payoffs needed to guarantee funding next election cycle.
The occasional incumbent who is voted out of office made one of two mistakes:
1. He/she showed a very troubling bit of independence from the technocrat status quo, so a
more orthodox candidate is selected to eliminate him/her.
2. The incumbent forgot to put on a charade of "listening to my constituency" etc.
If restive voters can't be bamboozled into passively supporting the technocrat status quo
with the usual propaganda, divide and conquer is the preferred strategy. Only voting for the
technocrat class (of any party, it doesn't really matter) will save us from the evil Other :
Deplorables, socialists, commies, fascists, etc.
In extreme cases where the masses confound the status quo by voting against the technocrat
class (i.e. against globalization, financialization, Empire), then the elites/technocrats will
punish them with austerity or a managed recession. The technocrat's core ideology boils down to
this:
1. The masses are dangerously incapable of making wise decisions about anything, so we have
to persuade them to do our bidding. Any dissent will be punished, marginalized, censored or
shut down under some pretext of "protecting the public" or violation of some open-ended
statute.
2. To insure this happy outcome, we must use all the powers of propaganda, up to and
including rigged statistics, bogus "facts" (official fake news can't be fake news, etc.),
divide and conquer, fear-mongering, misdirection and so on.
3. We must relentlessly centralize all power, wealth and authority so the masses have no
escape or independence left to threaten us. We must control everything, for their own good of
course.
4. Globalization must be presented not as a gargantuan fraud that has stripmined the planet
and its inhabitants, but as the sole wellspring of endless, permanent prosperity.
5. If the masses refuse to rubberstamp our leadership, they will be punished and told the
source of their punishment is their rejection of globalization, financialization and
Empire.
Technocrats rule the world, East and West alike. My two favorite charts of the outcome of
technocrats running things to suit their elite masters are:
The state-cartel-crony-capitalist version: the top .1% skim the vast majority of the gains
in income and wealth. Globalization, financialization and Empire sure do rack up impressive
gains. Too bad they're concentrated in the top 1.%.
The state-crony-socialist version: the currency is destroyed, impoverishing everyone but the
top .1% who transferred their wealth to Miami, London and Zurich long ago. Hmm, do you discern
a pattern here in the elite-technocrat regime?
Ideology is just a cover you slip over the machine to mask what's really going on.
"... In 2004, the historian Walter McDougall concluded that as early as the Civil War, America was a "nation of hustlers." During Reconstruction, Walt Whitman wrote that "genuine belief" seemed to have left America. "The underlying principles of the States," Whitman said, "are not honestly believed in, nor is humanity itself believed in." ..."
"... Accumulation of capital is the dominant, even definitional, American idea, which is why Calvin Coolidge famously remarked, "The chief business of the American people is business." ..."
"... Christopher Lasch had a slightly more prosaic way of measuring the pain of progress. "The triumph of corporate capitalism," he wrote, "has created a society characterized by a high degree of uniformity, which nevertheless lacks the cohesiveness and sense of shared experience that distinguish a truly integrated community from an atomistic society." ..."
"... Rather than a "marketplace of ideas," the United States is a mere marketplace, and just like at any store in the shopping mall, whatever fails to sell is removed from the shelves. Today's trend is tomorrow's garbage. ..."
"... We focus on immigration because it is a clear threat to the American tradition with clear and obvious solutions. ..."
"... While I appreciate that the writer is trying to link immigration with big business and culture, the argument as a whole doesn't come together. He needs to define what he means by "corporate capitalism," "identity," and "culture"; otherwise, this is nothing more than a incoherent rant. Is he talking about popular entertainment, the arts, academic institutions, civil society, religion? How exactly is the existence of a Walmart or the popularity of smartphones to blame? Quoting Walt Whitman and Calvin Coolidge doesn't really get us anywhere. ..."
"... Yes of course a commercial culture is prosperous, dynamic, cosmopolitan, rootless, greedy, materialistic, cynical, plebian and vulgar. And yes, of course in a market-dominated culture, all other systems of indoctrination (i.e. church and state) are constantly on the defensive. ..."
"... That is not 'no' culture; it is a highly distinctive culture. It tends to neglect the high arts and excel at the low arts; it favors novelty over tradition, spectacle over reflection, passion over balance. Again, 'twas ever thus; as is the inevitable cooling of these innovations to new formalisms for the next generation to rebel against, and enrich. ..."
"... So, what should replace corporate capitalism -- socialism, distributism, non-corporate capitalism, what? ..."
Donald Trump, during a recent stop on his "Anarchy in the UK" tour, argued that the mass influx of immigrants into Europe is causing
Great Britain and other nations to "lose their culture." The fear of cultural dilution and transformation as a consequence of shifting
demographics is widespread, and it resonates in the United States, too, especially among those who support the current president.
Stephen Bannon, Tucker Carlson, and other popular right-wing figures have warned of threats to national identity in an American
context, contending that Mexicans will not assimilate and that Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy and secular governance.
Liberals and libertarians often respond by recalling the long tradition of assimilation in American history, along with the outrage
that often accompanies new arrivals. Nearly every ethnic group, from the Italians to the Chinese, has been the target of political
and social hostility. It is an old story, but one worth telling, and it is an old debate, but one worth having. Border sovereignty,
even to someone like me who probably favors more liberal immigration laws than most TAC readers, is a legitimate issue and
not to be easily dismissed.
The current conversation about traditionalism, national identity, and cultural preservation, however, is so narrow to render it
counterproductive and oblivious. For those truly worried about the conservation of traditional culture, to focus solely, or even
primarily, on immigration is the equivalent of a gunshot victim rushing to the barber for a haircut.
Rather than asking whether American culture is at risk of ruination, it is more salient to inquire, after decades of commercialization,
Madison Avenue advertising onslaughts, the erasure of regional differences, and the "Bowling Alone" collapse of community, whether
America even has a culture.
In 2004, the historian Walter McDougall concluded that as early as the Civil War, America was a "nation of hustlers." During
Reconstruction, Walt Whitman wrote that "genuine belief" seemed to have left America. "The underlying principles of the States,"
Whitman said, "are not honestly believed in, nor is humanity itself believed in."
Prophesizing with his pen that democratic structures and procedures would prove insufficient to cultivate a truly democratic culture,
Whitman likened the American obsession with commercial conquest and pecuniary gain to a "magician's serpent that ate up all the other
serpents." Americans, Whitman warned, were dedicating themselves to creating a "thoroughly-appointed body with no soul."
When Whitman wrote the essay in question -- "Democratic Vistas" -- the United States had open borders and immigrants freely entered
the "new world" for reasons of freedom and financial ambition. Even if they attended churches in their native languages and lived
in ethnic enclaves, they often found that they could matriculate into the mainstream of Americana through pursuit of the "American
dream," that is, hope for monetary triumph. Accumulation of capital is the dominant, even definitional, American idea, which
is why Calvin Coolidge famously remarked, "The chief business of the American people is business."
Capitalism is a formidable engine, enabling society to advance and allowing for high standards of living. But to construct an
entire culture around what Coolidge identified as "buying, selling, investing, and prospering," especially when capitalism becomes
corporate and cronyist, is to steadily empty a culture of its meaning and purpose.
Few were as celebratory over the potential for meaning and purpose in American culture as Whitman, who drew profound inspiration
from America's natural beauty and regional diversity. So what force was most responsible for the widespread desecration of America's
own Garden of Eden? All arguments about immigration aside, changing demographics did not transform the country into the planetary
capital of asphalt and replace its rich terrain with the endless suburban sprawl of office complexes, strip malls, and parking lots.
The reduction of the American character to a giant Walmart and the mutation of the American landscape, outside of metropolitan areas,
to the same cloned big box stores and corporate chains is not a consequence of immigration.
The degradation of the American arts and the assault on history and civics in public school and even higher education curricula
is not the result of immigrants flooding American streets. Amy Chua has argued quite the opposite when it comes to America's increasingly
imbecilic and obscene pop culture. Many immigrant families try to keep their children away from the influence of reality television,
the anti-intellectual reverence for celebrities, and the vigilant commercialization of every aspect of life.
The same cultural killer is responsible for all the assaults on American identity visible as daily routine, from environmental
destruction to the endangerment of independent retailers and "mom and pop" shops. That culprit is corporate capitalism. It is a large
entity that, like any killer, justifies its death toll with dogmatic claims of ideology. "Progress," everyone from the owner of the
local diner to the out-of-work art teacher is told, has no room for you.
In his song "The West End," John Mellencamp gives an angry account of the disappearance of a small town:
For my whole life
I've lived down in the West End
But it sure has changed here
Since I was a kid
It's worse now
Look what progress did
Someone lined their pockets
I don't know who that is
Progress, as Mellencamp succinctly captures in song, often comes at someone else's expense, and translates to enrichment for the
few who benefit.
Christopher Lasch had a slightly more prosaic way of measuring the pain of progress. "The triumph of corporate capitalism,"
he wrote, "has created a society characterized by a high degree of uniformity, which nevertheless lacks the cohesiveness and sense
of shared experience that distinguish a truly integrated community from an atomistic society."
The irony Lasch describes is tragic. A culture of corporate capitalism demands conformity, and most people cooperate. But because
its center is hollow, few people feel any sense of connection to each other, even as they parrot the same values. It is no wonder
that most forms of rebellion in the United States are exhibitions of stylized individualism -- inspiring theater and often enlivening
to observe, but politically fruitless.
Rather than a "marketplace of ideas," the United States is a mere marketplace, and just like at any store in the shopping
mall, whatever fails to sell is removed from the shelves. Today's trend is tomorrow's garbage.
Those concerned about tradition and cultural longevity can lament immigration and condemn "open borders." But if they are serious
about American identity, they should begin and end with the villainous corporate enterprise that has waged war on it since the late
19th century.
Whatever culture remains in this country can often be found in the places where people still maintain at least a symbolic link
with their immigrant roots.
Many of the immigrants came to the dream of America believing the myth. That they could be anything hard work would bring them,
regardless of rank or class of birth, title, family name, or religious prejudice. For the most part, this was sufficiently true
that they prospered. They became "us". This [perhaps naive] belief in the dream made most of them, and their children, our most
loyal and law-abiding citizens.
It was indeed the robber barons of the 19th century that pushed us down the path of self-destruction.
I feel vindicated. Some years ago, Rod Dreher pilloried me for being obsessed with how destructive corporate capitalism had become
to American culture, values and social cohesion. I think his epiphany came, when supposedly "conservative" big business turned
out to be on the other side in the culture wars.
I hear you, Mr. Masciotra. I'm not especially fond of large for-profit corporations. But they wouldn't occupy monopolistic positions
and enjoy rapacious profits and latitude for enormous misdeeds if the public were firmly opposed to that sort of thing. Americans
generally love a winner, even if the "winning" is fraudulent or coerced, as long as they personally aren't coerced or defrauded.
It's all about the money, or at least the belief that the money might come.
Thank you for this refreshing piece which points the finger to a place where those on the left and right can actually make a difference.
Of course, making any changes will require dismantling some the mythology of the American prosperity gospel, but it starts with
great articles like these.
The system didn't become corrupt in the 80s, it's been that way for much longer. And there have been hustlers and " well meaning
" Corporate yes men making dishonest money off of their compatriots for centuries (everywhere, I might add).
So the question is, do we want to continue to encourage this behavior or do we dare to dream of another reality ?
Well crafted and thoughtful. Years ago, Walker Percy observed that America was unique among nations in that it was simultaneously
the most religious country and the most materialistic country in the world. Fast forward to 2018 and while religion appears to
be in decline "getting and spending" continues apace.
Agreed but lets be honest with ourselves. We have to go where the kindling is dry and abundant to start a proverbial fire. America
does have a culture. To see that all one need do is visit Nashville, the Ozarks or farm country in nebraska. Where there are still
people the culture survives. That is a stoical dispensation. The culture does go back to Hellenism but Americana does have it's
own ways. Go visit Europe for any amount of time or dare I say it Asia and American culture becomes obvious.
Thanksgiving is a uniquely American holiday that, in my opinion, best represents American culture and how it is different from
all else.
Corporate Capitalism has always been American culture and life. Basic Taylorism on the assembly line was over 100 years in which
men spent 50 -- 60 hours a week performing a single task very quickly.
What is American art? Would we consider Chuck Berry and Elvis Presley great American art and music? I do but the original reaction
of older Americans was 1950s R&R was complete degradation of music. (Some of the racial language was very colorful by good citizens.)
Or what Star Wars or Godfather. Or maybe the modern Marvel 'universe' has a degree of great pop art.
Certainly well argued but for one important element that has been omitted; one ingredient which bundles everything together into
one integrated picture. That necessary item can be summed with these two words, "buy in." Corporate capitalism would never hold
sway except for the acquiescence of the populace which wanting the quantity of commodities had gathered in the shopping malls
but now remain isolated in the front of their computer screens or cell phones.
Rather than there being the tyranny of the marketplace bringing forth this dominance of goods over people and the legerdemain
of monetized value displacing our organic relationship to the land, it is this anonymous accommodation to the denigration of the
high arts and the erosion to our culture which is the ultimate culprit.
In a word, it is the tyranny of the masses which pulls apart any endeavor at creating and sustaining a hierarchy of value rewarding
all enterprise which appeases public taste by appealing to the lowest common denominator. Fore it is through this tyranny that
capitalism has built its avaricious edifice.
Suffice it to say that the target "corporate capitalism" remains the straw man, that ethereal and empty concept devoid of blood
and sinews. Where then does one find the source to this dilemma but in that which is of both flesh and blood namely humanity.
The problem lies with the populace.
What is called for here is an awakening but not through a reckoning as that would only cause humanity to roll over and return
to its slumber. And if crisis and collapse serves not the catalyst for such an awakening what then will provide such an arousal?
Until such a time, we remain asleep and the institutions of our dream life will rule us.
Corporate capitalism is not the source. It is not even at the source. We are the source until such a time as we awaken.
excellent points. oh, and ironically (or not), from the Middle Ages (Europe) through the 19th century (American West), it was
not uncommon for a barber to also perform ad hoc surgery/medical procedures, or to share space with the town's 'doctor', so in
some instances it was prudent to go to the barbershop if shot
"Liberals and libertarians often respond by recalling the long tradition of assimilation in American history, along with
the outrage that often accompanies new arrivals."
Apples and oranges. The welfare state didn't exist then, so it was assimilate or fail. 1/3 of all culturally similar to existing
US culture Europeans returned to Europe.
Today, "Press 2 for Spanish", the welfare state (give birth on US soil to a US citizen for family access to benefits [or steal
an ID], then chain migrate the rest of your family), the Internet, and identity politics discourage assimilation and allow extremely
large cultural enclaves which are politically divisive as pointed out MANY years ago by the not exactly "right wing" former WH
press secretary for LBJ, Bill Moyers, in one of his many excellent documentaries.
We focus on immigration because it is a clear threat to the American tradition with clear and obvious solutions. The
author paints this focus of the Trumpian and dissident right as exclusionary, but it is not; at the same time arguing for his
own exclusionary anti-capitalist platform. Quite frankly, I don't know what it's doing on TAC, but I will take the time to respond.
The criticism of anti-immigration on the right is a straw man argument. The dissident right is not merely anti-immigration,
it is more broadly anti-multiracialist. Many understand and agree with the author on the problems of capitalism, but also see
racial and cultural integration as an additional threat to the American tradition. His point about how the immigration (into America)
didn't cause the hellspace of suburbia is true, since only up until 1965 did we make sure immigrants were white and could integrate
well into society. However, he ignores the history of black empancipation and subsequent desegregation that led to massive internal
migration from the South into cities like Detroit, Chicago, and Baltimore. There weren't always majority black, my friend. The
very real problems that this internal migration presented to ethnically homogenous, culturally rich, urban white neighborhoods
in the 20th century were the driving force behind the suburban sprawl. We colloquially refer to this phenomenon as "white flight,"
and many on the left and the right see it as unjustified "racism."
The curious reader would do well to investigate this claim to see if maybe white flight might have actually been very justified,
maybe a gross historical injustice was done to those now ethnically cleansed communities, and maybe racial desegregation is partly
to blame for the author's perceived lack of (white) culture in America.
Thank you for reading.
"Capitalism" is cronyist by nature. "Capitalism" itself requires an extensive set of laws that benefit some economic arrangements
over others. Now the reason for this is because nations need development, and that means they need capital, and that means they
need to create laws that ensure that the people who have capital feel willing and confident enough to invest it in that country.
But once you've opened the pandora's box of bankruptcy laws, limit liability, and other "terms and conditions" of investment
and capital, you're going to have a system that lends itself to cronyism when you have no other counter-balancing power from labor.
My brilliant iPad just deleted my response. So, quickly, capitalism is partly curable by antitrust and protectionism, but proto-amnesty
mass immigration is not curable, and it more quickly distorts national identity than does capitalism, which takes a very long
time to alter society's frame. Mass immigration does that relatively quickly. Also, immigration has as many rackets as capitalism
does -- for the one, capital gains tax cuts, and for the other, H1-B visas.
only up until 1965 did we make sure immigrants were white and could integrate well into society
The immigration act of 1924 which choked off most immigration was about reducing white immigration. It didn't actually affect
Mexican immigration. The largest beneficiaries the post-1965 immigration laws have been Asian immigrants who everyone argues integrate
perfectly well.
ethnically homogenous, culturally rich, urban white neighborhoods
Any of the residents of those neighborhoods in Chicago would have been quick to deny they were "ethnically homogeneous" because
they would have pointed out how they were mixed neighborhoods of Greeks, Poles, Slovenes, etc.
Its about time someone on this site placed at least 50% of the blame when it comes to demise of the American Middle Class as well
as ' culture ' -- ( such as it is seeing we have no well defined codified ' culture ' because we are and have been since the beginning
so diverse ) -- on the American Corpocracy .
But the fact is the other 50% of the blame must fall firmly upon the shoulders of the greedy speculators and investors convinced
every year should be a profitable year and they should of received next year's profits yesterday
Along with the American Consumer addicted to cheap goods 60% of which they have no need for nor ever use .
So what is the answer ? First we need to move towards a Responsible Capitalism rather than the Ayn Rand addled narcissist Hyper-
Capitalism rapidly approaching Anarcho -- Capitalism we're currently immersed in from the Oval Office on down
Second the American Consumer needs to accept paying what something is worth .. be it service , goods or food .. rather than
thinking the entire world is a discounted oyster at their beck and call
And Third .. with the onus once again falling firmly upon the shoulders of the discount addled American consumer . We need
to get over the theater of convenience shopping ( online ) and get back to supporting local businesses who pay taxes to our local
community and are in fact our neighbors
Problem is all of the above solutions require both compromise , authentic thought as well as discernment
None of which ( for the most part ) currently exists in this over polarized ' Collective Stupidity of America ' zeitgeist we're
firmly entrenched in
Lecture over . Donuts , bagels and coffee in the virtual break room .
English colonials brought to the American continent both English Law -- based on private property -- which has turned into Corporate
Market Capitalism (Citizens United, eh?), and the Enlightenment idea of the centrality of Individual Freedom, which has turned
into the rank Individualism of our current Me-Myself-and-I cultural ethos.
Democracy and a healthy culture, in my view, depend upon holding in balance the needs/desires/rights of both the Individual
and the broader Common Good. There now seems to be little left of a Social Covenant that includes all Americans, which is central
to a viable culture.
I'll say this when it comes it integration: people in the past weren't forced to integrate in the least. A friend of mine has
a grandmother that speaks Russian, only Russian, and no English. As long as she remained in her little enclave in the US, why
need to speak English? In my native Cincinnati the "Over the Rhine" neighborhood had beer gardens, German schools, German newspapers,
and German street signs. Only a fire and I am sure some Progressive 'encouragement' broke the neighborhood up.
White in America use to mean Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. To be Wet was to be Catholic and to be Catholic was to be an immigrant.
Dry was honest, hard working, and true. Wet was disorderly, murderous, and poor. Irish weren't white, Poles weren't white, and
the Italians most certainly weren't white.
My question is why are we poo pooing Latina values? Family centric, conservative, Catholic/Christian, and hard working (come
on, either immigrants are stealing our jobs or they are welfare leeches, pick one!). Their food is delicious and the music is
fun.
The latina vote should be the Republican vote if they would just get over themselves. Spanish is just as much a Romance language
as French or Italian. Get with the program, declare them white, and let's enjoy a super majority with taco Tuesday.
@BradD
Nothing is necessarily wrong with "Latin" values per se . The problem is with massive amounts of Illigeal immigration coming all
from one area. I'm sorry but integration and assimilation is extremely important, just look at Europe for an idea of what happens
to countries that don't integrate immigrants well.
Also, if "Latin" values are great and desirable then why would such a massive amount of people be bum rushing our southern
borders?
Can you please tell me one example of a country in Latin America that has been successful for an extended period of time? I
cannot even think of one. When people come in small waves they can integrate and learn the value of our institutions, laws, freedom,
liberty ect They basically become American w/ Latin heritage. When they come en mass, they keep their societies values a lot longer
and stay in enclaves a lot longer as well. As an example not too long ago I was in the southern part of Houston Texas and the
Galveston area and I cannot tell you the number of cars, houses and business that have the Mexican flag up instead of the USA
flag! That is all kinds of wrong to me. If Mexico is so great, than they should just move on back and set up shop there.
Ding, ding, ding
We have a winner here. America is promoted as merchant culture, bread or bombs. The peoole termed colonists were largely corporate
sponsored. So when people continue to arrive, they figure starting their store or buying the "right" things is American culture.
And for everything else, they just say, "We have our own, thank you."
While I appreciate that the writer is trying to link immigration with big business and culture, the argument as a whole doesn't
come together. He needs to define what he means by "corporate capitalism," "identity," and "culture"; otherwise, this is nothing
more than a incoherent rant. Is he talking about popular entertainment, the arts, academic institutions, civil society, religion?
How exactly is the existence of a Walmart or the popularity of smartphones to blame? Quoting Walt Whitman and Calvin Coolidge
doesn't really get us anywhere.
I would be happy to defend free enterprise in America and would even credit the business and marketing practices in America
for inculcating customer service as a uniquely American trait. You can tell you're in America when people act politely and aim
to serve you -- even illiterate young people know this. Go to any country in Europe, and you'll find a whole staff of people from
the airport, to the stores, to the hotel frowning at you for having the nerve to have want of their services. And that's just
a side benefit. The main thing business does is finance the creation of culture at all levels. Any civilization's golden age followed
from societal prosperity, not from a more democratic and tasteful distribution of wealth.
If we're talking about the arts and influence, America is still the most dynamic in the world, being a great producer of movies,
music, books, and all the rest. Even the existence of a site like TAC should cause one to reflect on just how nice it is to live
in a country that permits open discourse and values quality writing and ideas -- and for no cost at all to the reader. We can
despair all we like of the decline of the Oscars, or the stupidity of modern art, or the pointlessness of postmodernist ideology,
but it says something that we can even have this conversation. I'm not sure other cultures, outside those in elite circles, even
think about this stuff.
Wow, something Fran Macadam and I agree on! Surely there is enough there for some bright politician to make a central platform
plank out of?
A number of commenters point out that this isn't just imposed on us, we also embrace it (or just succumbed to the propaganda/advertising).
Fixing the problem will require efforts to curb corporate power as well cultural change from the ground up to embrace real values
beyond just capitalism.
Re: Today, "Press 2 for Spanish", the welfare state (give birth on US soil to a US citizen for family access to benefits [or steal
an ID], then chain migrate the rest of your family), the Internet, and identity politics discourage assimilation
The evidence, notably from language learning, shows that today's immigrants assimilate at about the same rate others did in
the past. And yes, you could hear other languages in the US in the past also. There were places in Detroit I remember in childhood
where all the signs were in Polish. Going farther back 19th century nativists were horrified that entire communities in the Midwest
spoke German. Early on, our eighth president, Martin Van Buren, grew up speaking Dutch in the Hudson Valley.
As for the welfare state, well, there were lots of mutual aid societies which provided help -- we were not a social Darwinist
nation. And don't forget the Civil War pensions to which a significant fraction of the population was entitled.
Mr. Mascriota tells us: "Border sovereignty, even to someone like me who probably favors more liberal immigration laws than most
TAC readers, is a legitimate issue and not to be easily dismissed."
And yet, Mr. Mascriotra, last Sept 9th (2017) at "Salon" you wrote an article entitled "The case for open borders: Stop defending
DACA recipients while condemning the 'sins' of their parents":
"As an English instructor and tutor, I've met young men and women from Ethiopia, China and Nigeria, and I have taught students
whose parents emigrated from Mexico to the United States 'illegally.' If I were an insecure coward afraid to compete in a multicultural
society, and convinced my future children would become deadbeats without the full force of white privilege to catapult them into
success, I would advocate for the deportation of immigrant families similar to those of my students, and I would repeat mindless
bromides like 'America First' and 'Build that Wall.' One of the costs of racism, xenophobia, or any form of pathetic provincialism
is that freezes the prejudicial person in a permanent state of mediocrity President Donald Trump's decision to end DACA, and his
demand that Congress 'fix the' nonexistent 'immigration problem,' demonstrates a stunning streak of sadism, projecting yet another
signal to his rabid and anti-American base of closed-minded losers If the 'real Americans' are afraid to compete with immigrants
for jobs, prestige, or cultural authority, they only indict themselves as weak, self-entitled and easy to panic. In a word, 'snowflakes'.
A bureaucratic permission slip is trivial compared to the imperative of human freedom -- freedom that should transcend what are
largely artificial borders."
@Mr. Soprano: I think Baltimore was a special case as a Southern city (which it historically was up to maybe WW1, maybe WW2.)
Don't know its demographics pre-WW2 but I'd bet dollars to donuts it was substantially more black pre-WW1 than Chicago, which
was nearly all white up to about 1915 even though it was founded by a Francophone Black man Jean Baptiste Pont du Sable.
David Masciotra: Not sure what I think about the ironmongery in your left ear, but this piece is excellent. My only criticism
-- mild at that -- concerns the analogy in your third paragraph:
" to focus [our worries] on immigration is the equivalent of a gunshot victim rushing to the barber for a haircut."
This article is timely, but only because its complaints are perennial. 'Twas ever thus.
Yes of course a commercial culture is prosperous, dynamic, cosmopolitan, rootless, greedy, materialistic, cynical, plebian
and vulgar. And yes, of course in a market-dominated culture, all other systems of indoctrination (i.e. church and state) are
constantly on the defensive.
That is not 'no' culture; it is a highly distinctive culture. It tends to neglect the high arts and excel at the low arts;
it favors novelty over tradition, spectacle over reflection, passion over balance. Again, 'twas ever thus; as is the inevitable
cooling of these innovations to new formalisms for the next generation to rebel against, and enrich.
A similar cycle applies to demographics. Today's scary outsider becomes tomorrow's stodgy insider, after they buy their way
in. I therefore second BradD's motion to declare Hispanics to be white; and Asians too.
All those disturbed by demographic transitions should contemplate this truism: that by the middle of next century every man,
woman and child now alive shall be dead, and replaced by people not born yet.
This includes you, which makes it personal. What a way to run a world! But if you can put up with 100% population turnover
by 2150, then language and skin tint seems (to me at least) a trivial detail.
***
Self-critique: The preceding analysis has a flaw, namely that this is not simply a 'commercial' culture; it is a 'capitalistic'
culture, which is the least free form of commercial culture.
Go to any country in Europe, and you'll find a whole staff of people from the airport, to the stores, to the hotel frowning
at you for having the nerve to have want of their services.
Americans, in my experience, mistake lack of slavish over-friendliness as rudeness. I have realized this because I am a fairly
reserved kind of person, and "reserved" gets coded as "aloof" or "snobbish."
European retail still follows the "sole proprietor" model of service -- it's assumed that by shopping there you're effectively
entering someone else's home, and you must act accordingly. In the US, lacking a formal class system, the retail experience is
one coded towards allowing the customer to feel as though he is a noble with servants to attend on him that he can order around.
The store is selling that experience.
Related to this is why middle class and upper middle Americans are so upset by the DMV and the Post Office. It's the only place
where money does not buy them any better service, and they cannot use the threat of talking to the manager to have the service
personnel fired in order to get what they want.
America's customer service culture is probably one of our most culturally dysfunctional aspects, all rooted in middle class
insecurity.
If this were actually, a Conservative website, that valued Western ideals? Do you really believe such excuses or something outside
of myself like the "devil made me do it" will pass mustard with "God" or "St. Peter?"
I strongly endorse Jon's (much earlier comment). It is not corporations that ruin culture but we who demand what they give. Corporations
are just a convenient funding vehicle to produce goods. Yes they often mass market them. But it is we who like the marketing.
If we were appalled, or turned away and it ignored it, they would change. In the end, when the spiritual life is subordinate to
the material, our appetites and the corporations that serve them are a guaranteed outcome.
late to this thread but what is American identity? How is it different from let's say a Danish identity? I have a good number
of coworkers from other countries: Asians, South Americans, some Germans or Swedes. When I visit them, do you think I find their
homes, their families (or their priorities for that matter) different from that of born-here American? If so, I must have missed
it
Auguste Mayrat hit the nail on the head. This article is garbage. It's sad that so many commentators agree with it. America is
full of culture: pro and college sports, movies, TV shows, technology, books, music of all kinds all consumed throughout the world,
as people from all countries love and admire American culture. Find a country that produces more culture than America. You can't.
Churches and schools proliferate here. What's so bad about corporations? If you own an iPhone or a television or a car or shop
at the mall, or ride a plane or go on a cruise, you're a hypocrite to be against corporations. Corporations provide goods and
services that people want, not to mention jobs. The author of this piece is an intellectual lightweight, and those who agree with
his views are the type of blind sheep that communists find useful. The author neither specified what's bad about corporations,
nor provides any solutions. Can believe TAC publishes such drivel.
From comments: "Relax everyone, Stockman says
exactly the same thing
this time every year, he
just changes the dates."
Notable quotes:
"... We are in a "never before seen" monetary "experiment" Some debt will be written off. Stocks will fall. Banks will fail. Long overdue. ..."
"... Today's doom porn is brought to you by the letters D and S ..."
"... He says the Earth has entered the Anthropocene. Although it is not an official epoch on the geological timescale, the Anthropocene is entering scientific terminology. It spans the time since industrialisation, when our species started to rival ice ages and comet impacts in driving the climate on a planetary scale. Fenner says the real trouble is the population explosion and "unbridled consumption". ..."
"... Capitalism requires growth to survive. Look at what happened to FB recently when they merely stated that their growth was slowing. ..."
"... The answer to your question, is yes. As short term rates continue to rise, PM hoarders will begin cashing in much of their holdings, to chase yields. which will start a run ..."
"... I suspect the waterfall move down will be in property prices, both CRE and residential. ..."
David Stockman warns that the global economy has reached an "epochal pivot", a moment when the
false prosperity created from $trillions in printed money by the world's central banks lurches
violently into reverse.
There are few people alive who understand the global economy and its (mis)management better
than David Stockman
-- former director of the OMB under President Reagan, former US
Representative, best-selling author of
The
Great Deformation
, and veteran financier -- which is why his perspective is not to be dismissed
lightly. He knows intimiately how how our political and financial systems work, as well as what their
vulnerabilties are.
And Stockman thinks the top for the current asset price bubble era is in -- specifically,
he thinks it hit its apex in January 2018.
As this "Everything Bubble" prepares to burst,
Stockman estimates the risk of economic crisis is as great, if not greater than, the 2008 Great
Financial Crisis because of the radical and unsustainable monetary policy expansion the central banks
have pursued over the past decade.
This has caused the prices of stocks, bonds, real estate and most other assets to appreciate at
rates that have no basis in the ongoing income/cash flow of the global economy. In short, they are
wildly overvalued.
A key condition that Stockman has been waiting to see, that serves as a signal the bubble's
bursting is nigh, is the concentration of speculative capital into fewer and fewer stocks as the
"good" options for investors shrink. We now clearly see this in the FAANG complex (a topic covered in
detail in our recent report
The
FAANG-nary In The Coal Mine
)
Stockman's main warning is that there's no bid underneath this market -- that when
perception shifts from greed to fear, the bottom is much farther down than most investors realize. In
his words, it's "rigged for implosion".
He predicts a Great Reset is imminent.
One that, for those who see it
coming and take prudent action today, will offer tremendous, perhaps once-in-a-lifetime, investment
opportunity once the dust settles.
To hear Stockman's specific predictions and warnings, listen to this 16-minute interview:
Those interested in having the opportunity to spend an entire day with David Stockman, where he'll
present the specifics of his forecasts as well as address investor Q&A, should consider attending Peak
Prosperity's
New
York City Summit with him on Sep 26, 2018
.
It's a good thing this Summit is coming up soon. We very likely do not have much time left before
Stockman's predicted Great Reset begins.
As he puts it himself:
You would think by now that the big thinkers and strategists of Wall Street would get the joke.
Trump's election was always a dagger aimed squarely at the egregious financial bubbles on Wall
Street that have been building for 30 years at the expense of a stagnant main street economy.
And now [America's] no-holds barred pursuit of Trade Wars and Fiscal Debauch have guaranteed
that the day of reckoning is at hand.
In fact, it may be only days away. And this chart from the final days of the dotcom bubble may
be a pretty serviceable roadmap as to why and when.
Maybe one of the keys to surviving this upcoming
economic collapse is to be completely out of debt with very little money in the bank
and with just enough precious metals to keep from starving while living in a small
town just far enough away from the city to keep foreigners from invading.
"This hatred will be still further magnified by the effects of
an economic crises, which will stop dealing on the exchanges
and bring industry to a standstill. We shall create by all the
secret subterranean methods open to us and with the aid of
gold, which is all in our hands, a universal economic crises
whereby we shall throw upon the streets whole mobs of workers
simultaneously in all the countries of europe. These mobs will
rush delightedly to shed the blood of those whom, in the
simplicity of their ignorance, they have envied from their
cradles, and whose property they will then be able to loot."
If you want timing, I would say within the month we will have the
first installment of the correction. As for fixing things, it is
never guaranteed, much like a war.
Lots of people are saying that
the correction won't come in
installments, but in one lump sum.
Dunno, but doesn't timing always include those 'limit down' days?
as long as the pm's are in your control and not at some brokerage storage
area, you should be fine. If you can't touch it every day, then you don't
own it is my philosophy.
This economy is more Oscar-the-Grouch-like than Big Birdish, no matter how
much bragging is done. It is not Big Bird's fault, however. It was all in
place before he ever got there. Sunny day, not.
One question, though...If you are an average Venezuelan, wouldn't it be
easier to have BitCoin? Affluent people have the means to store gold and
better ways of selling it in the case of an economic catastrophe. It would
be interesting to hear the perspective of ordinary people in places with
hyperinflated currency. They would probably be afraid to discuss it,
though, due to nutty .gov officials. It seems like people could help them
easier via BTC, assuming they have some way to spend it on staples. In the
event of a calamity, most people will just give up, I fear.
Actually, I believe it's 99% of all species that ever existed have gone
extinct. Humans will not be the exception. What people don't realize is how
soon down the road human extinction might be.
"We're going to become extinct," the eminent scientist says. "Whatever
we do now is too late."
Fenner is an authority on extinction. The emeritus professor in
microbiology at the Australian National University played a leading role in
sending one species into oblivion: the variola virus that causes smallpox.
And his work on the myxoma virus suppressed wild rabbit populations on
farming land in southeastern Australia in the early 1950s.
He made the comments in an interview at his home in a leafy Canberra
suburb. Now 95, he rarely gives interviews.
He says the Earth has entered the Anthropocene. Although it is not an
official epoch on the geological timescale, the Anthropocene is entering
scientific terminology. It spans the time since industrialisation, when our
species started to rival ice ages and comet impacts in driving the climate
on a planetary scale. Fenner says the real trouble is the population explosion and "unbridled
consumption".
The number of Homo sapiens is projected to exceed 6.9 billion this year,
according to the UN. With delays in firm action on cutting greenhouse gas
emissions, Fenner is pessimistic.
"We'll undergo the same fate as the people on Easter Island," he says.
"Climate change is just at the very beginning. But we're seeing remarkable
changes in the weather already. The human species is likely to go the same
way as many of the species that we've seen disappear.
"Homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years," he says.
"A lot of other animals will, too. It's an irreversible situation. I think
it's too late. I try not to express that because people are trying to do
something, but they keep putting it off.
"Mitigation would slow things down a bit, but there are too many people
here already."
Stop paying citizens and noncitizens to reproduce via welfare
programs and the progressive tax code.
Maybe, high interest rates will moderate consumption patterns,
which are already on a downward trend, even in the Consumption
Capital of the World, USA.
Capitalism requires growth to survive. Look at what happened to FB
recently when they merely stated that their growth was slowing.
Almost all of capitalism's growth comes from population expansion. If
we demanded that nobody could reproduce, and the global population
was quickly cut in half, capitalism would utterly collapse. So, what
do you want to do? What do you think the richest capitalists, who
totally rule the world, want to do? Well, we know what they're going
to do. We're watching them do it. They're going to drive humanity
towards extinction and hope that their massive wealth allows them to
survive while 7 billion people perish; as if climate change will
abruptly come to a halt at that point and they will be spared. They
won't be. But that's their only game plan. What else could they
possibly do?
This planet has seen Cambrian and other explosions of
diversity as well as Permian-level extinctions that wiped out 90% of
all organisms and 40% of phyla. YET LOOK HOW THINGS STAND NOW.
Forget the cult of doom-saying, which really has all the elements
of a weird religious movement. If you bet, bet on life. Not
jackassery.
"Fenner says the real trouble is the population explosion and "unbridled
consumption".
The population of almost every western nation has been
declining for years. Even in the USA, if we subtracted immigration the
numbers would show a below replacement level birthrate. Africa, on the
other hand, shows a surprising increase in population every year defying
the expectations of demographers year after year and the continent is
now expected to have 4 trillion Africans by the end of the century. So
we do not have an overpopulation problem on planet earth. We have an
African problem. Furthermore, nearly all the growth in greenhouse gases
in western countries is driven by the transfer of immigrants from very
low carbon footprint countries to high carbon footprint countries. If
open border globalist David Gelbaum had not bribed the Sierra Club in
2006 with 100 million dollars to never mention immigration and the harm
it does our environment more people would be talking about the dangers
of immigration to our environment.
The eminent scientist may be right, we could be headed for
extinction, but not for his reasons, but for our fear of confronting the
reckless growth in Africa and the agenda of the globalist to turn all
western countries into dysfunctional ungovernable tribal nations via
massive endless immigration.
The problem is, that in a crisis, yes, both gold and silver will drop,
possibly almost as much as the stock and bond markets, however, at some
point during the crisis, they will snap back, and roar upwards. The
problem, as always, is that in a crisis environment, would you even be able
to obtain physical gold and silver, and, at what premium? It wasn't so long
ago that silver was trading at a 35% premium to spot, and we weren't even
in a financial or banking crisis, so, you can just imagine the kind of
spreads you would be paying to own physical, in a real crisis.
To my way
of thinking, if you believe in the durability of gold and silver to weather
not only severe inflation, but also severe deflation, one is much better
off buying before the crisis hits.
If inflation becomes the dominant trend, then your gold and silver will
rise with each hit on fiat currencies and the reserves banks that issue
them. If deflation becomes the dominant theme, yes, you may loose nominal
value compared to the price you purchased those holdings at, but since
everything else will be plummeting in prices, your relative wealth
advantage will be preserved.
It's difficult to say what will happen when the bottom falls out, once
again. This time will not be like 2008/09, when the Fed and other central
banks had small balance sheets and could buy government debt at very low
interest rates. Considering the trap that many countries (US included) find
themselves in now, I am not sure it is realistic to expect interest rates
to rise to 22% as they did when Nixon closed the gold window, for the
simple reason that interest rates at that level will definitely bankrupt
many sovereigns, making the situation even worse.
It might also be of interest to note, that in the last 15 years, the
price of gold, in all major currencies (pound, dollar, franc, euro, yen,
AUS and CAD) has risen between 10 and 12% a year, on average over those
years. Which simply means that the 'real' inflation rate has been between
10% and 12% in those currencies.
That is what gold does. It doesn't make you 'moar' money, but it does
preserve the purchasing power of the money you do have.
The answer to your question, is yes.
As short term rates continue to rise,
PM hoarders will begin cashing in much of their holdings, to chase
yields. which will start a run
Imo, gold and silver will continue to go down, which means, better buying
opportunities.
Anybody leveraged into PM's is long gone, I suspect the waterfall move down
will be in property prices, both CRE and residential. A tripling of
interest rates would not even get them back to historical norms, this will
devastate most mortgage holders.
This is kind of symbolic and amazing figures: 34 billions are spend in casinos each year. and that's just official figure...
Notable quotes:
"... Casinos and Gambling are a tax on the ignorant and the indigent. ..."
"... Economist, Michael Hudson recently said in an interview that economics trumps politics every time. I am an observer of casinos and gambling in it's many forms. I am someone who has been fleeced by vulture capitalists and unscrupulous financial types as well as government officials in charge of business financial assistance schemes that don't deliver. ..."
"... Another version of how ''Brave New World'' has come to pass. The documentaries: ''The Century of the Self'' and ''HyperNormalisation 2016'' by Adam Curtis explain how we have been subdued. This lady professor is very knowledgable. Excellent episode. ..."
"... Completing the circle of predatory capitalism. Government controlled by oligarchy/plutoracry that see us, the citizens, as enemies of the state. ..."
On this week's episode of On Contact, Chris Hedges discusses the ramifications of casino culture in America with Professor Natasha
Dow Schüll, author of " Addiction by Design: Machine Gambling in Las Vegas". RT Correspondent Anya Parampil examines how gambling
has become our premier form of entertainment and escape.
Economist, Michael Hudson recently said in an interview that economics trumps politics every time. I am an observer of
casinos and gambling in it's many forms. I am someone who has been fleeced by vulture capitalists and unscrupulous financial types
as well as government officials in charge of business financial assistance schemes that don't deliver.
Often the two ie the vultures and the government officials work in tandem.
I have extreme distaste for these zombies and an always on the alert. I am bowled over with how an overwhelming number of people
in society are scammed day in and day out and having their lives ruined. I fear it will shatter life as we know it not for individuals
only but for whole nations. People must pay more attention to attention to what this video says and what Michael Hudson explains
in his books .....Killing the Host and Junk Economics are his most recent ones.
I liked what she had to say, but I wonder why she didn't go a bit deeper into the operant conditioning aspect considering that's
what Skinner's work was based on. Why intermittent rewards work so well, and why the dopamine spike curve is so important in conditioning
a behavior in anything with a limbic system. Important because understanding how dopamine and dopamine spikes work came largely
from gambling research for slot machines. Technology that was built on Skinner's work by the gov and then business marketing along
with gov propaganda, then gambling. If people understood how it worked and where the technology came from they would be much less
likely to let gambling addiction happen in the first place.
I come from a family of gamblers, at least on my father's side. My dad towed us around to the racetracks and billiards parlors
until we were old enough to drive, and card games for money were a frequent family activity for us. I never felt attracted to
gambling, and often feel bored by the prospect. Needless to say, with advanced age I now find myself estranged from my remaining
siblings. What had occurred to me some time ago is how living life is such a gamble. Outcomes can always vary, from planning and
preparing for a career to going to the market for groceries. Games of chance seem to furnish a microcosm of the life experience,
where participants are allowed an illusion of greater control and the outcomes tend to be uniformly immediate. It also allows
you to ignore your greater life experience. Maybe that's the "zone" so many enjoy. I didn't remember what "March Madness" is.
Until all those slots were shown I thought they were talking about something similar to Black Friday. Now that I remember, it
hits me that my brother and sister undoubtedly have their bets down in multiple pools.
Another version of how ''Brave New World'' has come to pass. The documentaries: ''The Century of the Self'' and ''HyperNormalisation
2016'' by Adam Curtis explain how we have been subdued. This lady professor is very knowledgable. Excellent episode.
23:50 right on. We selfie generation are
too busy trolling the media and playing games to think, meditate, analyze, understand and act for our fellow man or a healthier
future for our country. It's all about me and my short-term gratifications.
Casino-Disasterism Capitalism is well named -- All of the engineered mechano-psychological traits used to make longshot escapist-gambling
popular, lucrative and addicting, based on the faux-goals of numb indulgence, cultivating of cheap-thrill delights, pandering
to the conceits of synthetic wastrel satisfactions and dead-end fatalism -- is evident in the terminal phase of the global corporate
deepstate technoracy of Empire Inc. that is pillaging and plundering its way across the planet, securitizing the earth right out
from under our feet! ~ ; )
Professor Natasha Dow Schüll said Trump won the presidential election, because Trump used his casino expertise to manipulate
voters. Based on the news I've seen, Trump was a failed casino owner. Trump is a con-artist who uses his massive inheritance,
multiple bankruptcies, privatized large gains, socialized larger losses, and sales hype in order "to win". Trump, Obama, and Bush
Jr. are good examples of how the average person lacks the talent, training, and experience to manage his/her own nation. Democracy,
majority tyranny, mob rule, or dumb-mock-crazy elections are modern myths.
The Clinton era, signified so much. Basically, in regard to this aspect, the very ending of any culture whatsoever; gambling
casinos took over our down-towns, and our oldest landmarks. I went in once and saw those carpets and nearly puked. Now she tells
why they are so ugly. Why any human being would find that appealing reminds me of Kissinger's infamous quote: "We've successfully
made the public so dumb, I cannot die. For there is no one to replace me.."
"As these contrasts show, capitalism has undergone enormous changes in the last two and a half centuries. While some of Smith's
basic principles remain valid, they do so only at very general levels.
For example, competition among profit-seeking firms may still be the key driving force of capitalism, as in Smith's scheme.
But it is not between small, anonymous firms which, accepting consumer tastes, fight it out by increasing the efficiency in
the use of given technology.
Today, competition is among huge multinational companies, with the ability not only to influence prices but to redefine technologies
in a short span of time (think about the battle between Apple and Samsung) and to manipulate consumer tastes through brand-image
building and advertising."
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. Winston
Churchill
Notable quotes:
"... As if living out one of Aesop's Fables, the hammer of US kinetic power so eagerly embraced at the urging of neo-conservatives and neoliberals alike following the collapse of communism exhausted the Western welders of the weapon instead of their targets. ..."
"... The reckless resort to indiscriminate military power in the US-dominated invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the following campaigns to topple the governments of Syria and Libya created unexpected consequences comparable to Isaac Newton's Third Law of Motion – Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction. ..."
"... However, the motives of the scores of millions of Americans who voted for Trump were perfectly clear: They were opting for American nationalism instead of American Empire. They were sickened by the clear results of 70 years of post-World War II global imperium that had arrogantly and casually allowed US domestic industry and society to wither on the vine for the supposed Greater Good of Global Leadership. ..."
"... These developments, to echo US President Thomas Jefferson's telling phrase nearly 200 years ago, are grave warnings. They are firebells in the night. They serve notice to Washington and London that their facilely optimistic "ever onward and upwards" drive to reshape the entire human race in their own image must be abandoned. ..."
"... Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom is a remotely united society any more. Both of them need to turn inward to resolve their own problems and abandon the fantastic quest to reassert global dominance that Reagan and Thatcher launched nearly 40 years ago. ..."
"... Capitalism is a society where billionaire capitalists own vast companies, banks, shares, and much of the land as well. Elected governments are bent to the will of the big corporations which the capitalists own. ..."
"... America has the greatest inequalities, highest mortality rate, most regressive taxes, and largest public subsidies for bankers and billionaires of any developed capitalist country. ..."
"... Contrary to the propaganda pushed by the business press, between 67% and 72% percent of corporations had zero tax liabilities after credits and exemptions while their workers and employees paid between 25 – 30% in taxes. The rate for the minority of corporations, which paid any tax, was 14%. ..."
"... According to the US Internal Revenue Service, billionaire tax evasion amounts to $458 billion dollars in lost public revenues every year – almost a trillion dollars every two years by this conservative esti ..."
"... Meanwhile US corporations in crisis received over $14.4 trillion dollars (Bloomberg claimed 12.8 trillion) in public bailout money, split between the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve, mostly from US tax payers, who are overwhelmingly workers, employees and pensioners. ..."
"... The problem is both the US and the UK have lost citizenry-control. Both countries have shadow governments and media operatives that work unseen to manipulate sentiment and events in-line with an overall world-government objective (Neo-Marxism). ..."
"... The so-called elites behind the curtain are after total control which is why we will continue toward totalitarian dictatorship. It will not be a one-man show nor will it be readily recognizable as such, rather there will be a Cabal of select ultra-wealthy liberals who will negotiate with each other as to which levers to pull and valves to turn in order to "guide" culture and civilization. ..."
The colossal project to re-colonialize the world started with United States President Ronald Reagan eagerly backed by United Kingdom
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1981 and over the next 20 years seemed to sweep all before it.
But we can now see that the creation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the 9/11 attacks in 2001 marked the turn
of the tide.
Since then one super-ambitious project of nation destruction and rebuilding after another generated by Washington and eagerly
embraced by its main Western European allies has collapsed spectacularly.
As if living out one of Aesop's Fables, the hammer of US kinetic power so eagerly embraced at the urging of neo-conservatives
and neoliberals alike following the collapse of communism exhausted the Western welders of the weapon instead of their targets.
The reckless resort to indiscriminate military power in the US-dominated invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the
following campaigns to topple the governments of Syria and Libya created unexpected consequences comparable to Isaac Newton's Third
Law of Motion – Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction.
Nevertheless, US and Western confidence in the triumph of liberal, free trade and democratic ideals around the world has remained
almost totally impervious to the sobering lessons of recalcitrant global realities. The great reawakening of Western imperial and
capitalist resolve heralded by Reagan and championed by his loyal spear carriers, Thatcher and her successors as prime ministers
of the United Kingdom continued unabated: Until 2016.
Two epochal events happened that year :
The British people, to the astonishment most of all of their own leaders, pundits and self-selected Platonic guides and "betters'
voted for Brexit : They opted by a narrow but decisive vote of 48 percent to 52 percent to leave the 28-nation European Union.
The disruptions and chaos set in motion by that fateful outcome have still only begun to work their way through the political
and economic systems of Europe.
Second, Donald Trump, even more amazingly was elected president of the United States to the limitless fury of the American
"Deep State" which continues unabated in its relentless and frantic efforts to topple him.
However, the motives of the scores of millions of Americans who voted for Trump were perfectly clear: They were opting for
American nationalism instead of American Empire. They were sickened by the clear results of 70 years of post-World War II global
imperium that had arrogantly and casually allowed US domestic industry and society to wither on the vine for the supposed Greater
Good of Global Leadership.
A decade and a half of endless, fruitless, ultra-expensive global wars entered into by the feckless and stupid George W. Bush
and continued by the complacent and superficial Barack Obama advanced this process of weariness and rejection.
Two years after the election of Trump and the British people's vote for Brexit, the great surge of the West that outlasted the
Soviet Union is clearly on the ebb : Now the United States is exhausted, the EU is falling apart and NATO is an empty shell – a paper
tiger if you will. Why is this happening and can it be reversed?
Free Trade was never the universal panacea it has been ludicrously claimed to be now for more than 240 years since Adam Smith
published his Wealth of Nations . On the contrary, the cold, remorseless facts of economic history clearly show that protective tariffs
to safeguard domestic manufactures and advantageous export-driven balance of payment surpluses are the true path to economic growth
and sustainable, lasting national power and wealth.
The idea that democracy – at least in the narrow, highly structured, manipulative and patchy form practiced in the United States
is some sort of universal guarantee for happiness, national stability and growth has also been repeatedly confounded.
Instead, the Western democratic states have fallen into exactly the same intellectual pit that trapped and eventually wrecked
the Soviet Union. They have launched a worldwide ideological crusade and poured wealth and resources into it to ignoring the well-being
and advancement of their own domestic economies and populations.
Far from bringing eternal and universal world peace – the alluring Holy Grail of every dangerous idealistic idiot since Jean-Jacques
Rousseau and Immanuel Kant – these policies only brought failure, frustration and rising military death lists for the countries that
pursued them instead.
This year, new hammer blows are following on the Reagan-Thatcher-spawned era of revived Anglo-American global leadership and domination.
The British themselves have palpably failed to cave out any secure or even plausible economic prospects for themselves in the
world once they leave the EU. Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Libya all remain wrecked societies shattered by the repeated air strikes
that Western compassion and reverence for human rights and democracy have visited upon them.
Now India and Pakistan – two English-speaking democracies and members of the once British-led Commonwealth of Nations, still so
dear to Queen Elizabeth II's aging heart – have opted to bury their existential rivalry and jointly join the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization – confirming it as the premier and by far the most powerful security alliance on the planet.
These developments, to echo US President Thomas Jefferson's telling phrase nearly 200 years ago, are grave warnings. They
are firebells in the night. They serve notice to Washington and London that their facilely optimistic "ever onward and upwards" drive
to reshape the entire human race in their own image must be abandoned.
Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom is a remotely united society any more. Both of them need to turn inward to
resolve their own problems and abandon the fantastic quest to reassert global dominance that Reagan and Thatcher launched nearly
40 years ago.
And they had better move fast. Jefferson's firebell is tolling and the sands of time are running out.
Capitalism is a society where billionaire capitalists own vast companies, banks, shares, and much of the land as well. Elected
governments are bent to the will of the big corporations which the capitalists own. To achieve genuine socialism, this ownership
of the world's wealth by the 1% must be ended. Capitalism means that a great deal of our society's resources, needed to produce
the things we need, are privately owned.
Capitalism is based on the private ownership of the productive forces (factories, offices, science and technique)
The bosses of the big corporate enterprises always threaten that if wages and conditions are not worsened, they will take their
business to another country where wages are lower.
America has the greatest inequalities, highest mortality rate, most regressive taxes, and largest public subsidies for bankers
and billionaires of any developed capitalist country.
Contrary to the propaganda pushed by the business press, between 67% and 72% percent of corporations had zero tax liabilities
after credits and exemptions while their workers and employees paid between 25 – 30% in taxes. The rate for the minority of corporations,
which paid any tax, was 14%.
According to the US Internal Revenue Service, billionaire tax evasion amounts to $458 billion dollars in lost public revenues
every year – almost a trillion dollars every two years by this conservative estimate.
The largest US corporations sheltered over $2.5 trillion dollars in overseas tax havens where they paid no taxes or single
digit tax rates.
Meanwhile US corporations in crisis received over $14.4 trillion dollars (Bloomberg claimed 12.8 trillion) in public bailout
money, split between the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve, mostly from US tax payers, who are overwhelmingly workers, employees
and pensioners.
You confuse free market capitalism with corporate cronyism, then suggest socialism is the answer? Why do you think that socialism
is the default panacea? Have you considered other alternatives? What of the pitfalls of socialism?
The problem is both the US and the UK have lost citizenry-control. Both countries have shadow governments and media operatives
that work unseen to manipulate sentiment and events in-line with an overall world-government objective (Neo-Marxism).
The so-called
elites behind the curtain are after total control which is why we will continue toward totalitarian dictatorship. It will not
be a one-man show nor will it be readily recognizable as such, rather there will be a Cabal of select ultra-wealthy liberals who
will negotiate with each other as to which levers to pull and valves to turn in order to "guide" culture and civilization.
But
the tightknit Cabal has more work to do to infiltrate deeper into world governments.
The EU's Parliament is a proto-type test
to tweak how they must proceed. As the Cabal coalesces their power, more draconian rulership will become apparent. The noose will
tighten slowly so as to be un-noticeable. Certain events are planned that will cause citizenry to demand totalitarianism (for
safety reasons). For the Cabal, it'll be like taking candy from a baby.
This, in a nutshell, is the outline of how the West loses
its democracy.
Being run by business, American culture suffers from an overwhelming
preponderance of stupidity . When a set of institutions as reactionary as big business has
a virtual monopoly over government and the media, the kinds of information, entertainment,
commentary, ideologies, and educational policies on offer will not conduce to rationality or
social understanding. What you'll end up with is, for instance, an electorate 25 percent of
whose members are inclined to
libertarianism . And the number is even higher
among young people. That is to say, huge numbers of people will be exposed to and persuaded by
the propaganda of the Cato Institute, the magazine Reason , Ayn Rand's novels, and
Milton Friedman's ideological hackery to express their rebellious and anti-authoritarian
impulses by becoming "extreme advocates of total tyranny," to quote Chomsky . They'll believe, as he translates,
that "power ought to be given into the hands of private, unaccountable tyrannies," namely
corporations. They'll think that if you just get government out of the picture and let
capitalism operate freely, unencumbered by regulations or oversight or labor unionism, all will
be for the best in this best of all possible worlds. And they'll genuinely believe they're
being subversive and anarchistic by proposing such a program.
The spectacle of millions adhering to such a breathtakingly stupid ideology would be comical
if it weren't so tragic. I'm an atheist, but Christianity strikes me as a more rational
-- and moral -- religion than this "libertarian" (really totalitarian) one of absolute faith in
universal privatization, marketization, corporatization, and commoditization. To be a so-called
libertarian is to be deplorably ignorant of modern history ,
economics , commonsense
sociology , human
psychology , and morality
itself . (Regarding morality: if the Golden Rule is an essential maxim, then the communist
slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," which is basically
a derivative of the Golden Rule, is fundamental to any humane social organization. Greed and
Social Darwinism -- every man for himself -- are hardly morally luminous principles.) Given
this reactionary philosophy's intellectual sterility and the fact that it's been refuted
countless times, it's tempting to simply ignore it. And most leftists do ignore it. But that's
a mistake, as the frightening figure quoted a moment ago (25 percent of the electorate)
indicates. It's necessary to challenge "free market" worship whenever and wherever it
appears.
The economist Rob Larson has performed an important service, therefore, in publishing his
new book Capitalism vs. Freedom:
The Toll Road to Serfdom , the more so because the book's lucidity and brevity should
win for it a wide readership. In five chapters, Larson systematically demolishes the glib
nostrums of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek (in the process also dispatching those other
patron saints of the right wing, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard). Even the
book's title is highly effective: the message " capitalism vs. freedom " should be
trumpeted from the hills, since it challenges one of the reigning dogmas of our society.
Liberals and leftists themselves sometimes buy into the view that capitalism promotes freedom,
arguing only that socialist equality and justice are more important than capitalist freedom.
But this is a false framing of the issue. The fact is that socialism, which is to say workers'
democratic control of the economy, not only means greater equality and justice than capitalism
but also greater freedom, at least for the 99 percent. It is freedom, after all, that has
inspired anarchists and even Marxists, including
Marx himself .
Larson begins with a brief discussion of two concepts of freedom, negative and positive (a
distinction that goes back, as he notes, at least to Isaiah Berlin). Crudely speaking, negative
freedom means the absence of external constraint, of a power that can force you to act in
particular ways. Positive freedom is the ability or opportunity actually to realize purposes
and wishes, to "control your destiny," so to speak. It involves having the means to satisfy
desires, as when you have the means to assuage hunger, be adequately clothed and sheltered, and
have adequate sanitation. Positive freedom can be thought of as "freedom to," whereas negative
freedom is "freedom from." Classical liberals like John Stuart Mill and modern conservatives
like Friedman and Hayek are more concerned with negative freedom, which explains their desire
for a minimal state; socialists are concerned also with positive freedom, sometimes believing
that a stronger state (e.g., a social democracy) can help ensure such freedom for the majority
of people.
Friedman and Hayek argued that free-market capitalism, with minimal intervention by the
state, is the surest guarantee of negative liberty. Larson's book is devoted mainly to refuting
this belief, which is widely held across the political spectrum; but it also defends the less
controversial claim that capitalism is incompatible with widespread positive liberty too.
"Capitalism," Larson writes, "withholds opportunities to enjoy freedom (required by the positive view of freedom) and
also encourages the growth of economic power (the adversary of liberty in the negative view of
freedom)." That concentrations of economic power in themselves threaten negative liberty might
be challenged, but this is a weak argument, among other reasons because it's clear that centers
of (economic) power will tend to dominate and manipulate the state in their own interest.
They'll construct coercive apparatuses to subordinate others to their power, which will itself
enable further accumulations of power, etc., until finally the society is ruled by an
oligarchy. Thus, from "pure" capitalism you get an oligarchy with the power to coerce.
However obvious this point may seem to those possessed of common sense, it's far from
obvious to libertarians and most conservatives. According to Friedman, "the kind of economic
organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also
promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this
way enables the one to offset the other." Here we encounter the typical naïve idealism of
conservatives (and, indeed, of centrists and liberals), which I've discussed at length
here . Rather than
analyzing the real conditions of real social structures, conservatives traffic in airy
abstractions about "freedom," "the separation of political and economic power," the lofty
virtues of "competitive capitalism," and so on. Evidently it doesn't occur to Friedman that
economic power will tend to confer political power, and therefore that, far from offsetting
each other, the two will be approximately fused. The economically powerful might not directly
hold political office, but because of the resources they possess, they'll have inordinate power
and influence over political leaders. This is intuitively obvious, but it's also borne out by
empirical research .
It's worth pointing out, too, something that Larson doesn't really focus on: within
corporations, freedom, even negative freedom, is severely curtailed. In the absence of a union,
the employee has hardly any rights. There's no freedom of expression, for example, and the boss
can threaten you, manipulate you however he wants, verbally abuse you, behave horrendously
towards you with probably no repercussions for himself. Capitalism in fact is a kind of
fragmented totalitarianism, as privately totalitarian corporate entities proliferate all over
society and constitute its essential infrastructure, its foundation
. The more oligopolistic they become, to some degree even fused with the state, the less
"fragmented" and more dangerous the totalitarianism is. Eventually the "libertarian" millennium
might be achieved in which all countervailing forces, such as unions, are eradicated and the
population is left wholly at the mercy of corporations, reveling in its sublime freedom to be
totally dominated.
Anyway, to resume the thread: Larson is right that "in portraying [the] concentration of
money in society as a reasonable development" -- e.g., as a reward for successfully competing
against other capitalists -- "the libertarian tradition completely dismisses the power
of concentrated money." Hayek, for example, claims that in a "competitive society" (a
meaningless abstraction: different kinds of societies can be "competitive") nobody possesses
excessive power. "So long as property is divided among many owners, none of them acting
independently has exclusive power to determine the income and position of particular people."
Okay, fine, maybe not exclusive power, but to the degree that property is divided
among fewer and fewer owners, these people can achieve overwhelming power to determine
the income and position of others. Such as by acquiring greater "positive freedom" to dominate
the state in their interests and against the interests of others, who thus proportionately lose
positive freedom and possibly (again) even negative freedom, e.g. if the wealthy can get laws
passed that restrict dissidents' right to free speech or free assembly.
More generally, it goes without saying that positive freedom is proportional to how much
money you have. It apparently doesn't bother most libertarians that if you're poor and unable
to find an employer to rent yourself to (in the gloriously "free, voluntary, and non-coercive"
labor market), you won't be able to eat or have a minimally decent life. Hopefully private
charities and compassionate individuals will come forward to help you; but if not, well, it's
nothing that society as a whole should care about. Strictly speaking, there is no
right to live (or to have shelter, food, health care, education, etc.); there is only
a right not to be interfered with by others (except in the workplace). What a magnificent moral
vision.
Libertarians admit that concentrations of wealth emerge in capitalism, but they deprecate
the idea that capitalism leads to competition-defeating market concentration in such forms as
oligopolies, monopolies, and monopsonies (like Wal-Mart). Usually these are created,
supposedly, by government interference. But most businessmen and serious scholars disagree,
pointing, for instance, to the significance of economies of scale. The famous business
historian Alfred Chandler showed that many industries quickly became oligopolistic on the
basis, in large part, of economies of scale. Historian Douglas Dowd observes that large-scale
industrial technology has made it both necessary for firms to enlarge and possible for them to
control their markets, while Australian economist Steve Keen argues that "increasing returns to
scale mean that the perfectly competitive market is unstable: it will, in time break down [into
oligopoly or monopoly]."
Larson might have gone further in this line of argument by emphasizing just how much
capitalists hate market discipline -- i.e., the "free market" -- and are constantly
trying to overcome it. They're obsessed with controlling markets, whether through
massive advertising campaigns, destruction or absorption of their competitors, price-fixing and
other forms of collusion, or the formation of hundreds of trade associations. The historian
Gabriel Kolko's classic study The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of
American History, 1900–1916 revealed that the hatred of market anarchy is so
extreme that Progressive-Era oligopolists were actually the main force behind government
regulation of industry (to benefit business, not the public), as with the Meat Inspection Act
of 1906, the Pure Food and Drug Act, the Federal Reserve Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and
the Federal Trade Commission Act. Andrew Carnegie and Elbert H. Gary, head of U.S. Steel, even
advocated government price-fixing! So much for the corporate propaganda about how wonderful
free markets are.
If government regulation is primarily responsible for monopoly elements in industries, as
Friedman and Hayek argue, then you'd think that the deregulation tsunami of the neoliberal era
would have led to greater competition across the economy. Did it? Not exactly. Larson quotes a
Forbes article:
Since freight railroads were deregulated in 1980, the number of large, so-called Class I
railroads has shrunk from 40 to seven. In truth, there are only four that matter These four
superpowers now take in more than 90% of the industry's revenue An estimated one-third of
shippers have access to only one railroad.
Quod erat demonstrandum . But there are many other examples. The deregulatory
Telecommunications Act of 1996 was supposed to throw open the industry to competition; what it
accomplished, according to the Wall Street Journal , was "a new phase in the
hyper-consolidation of the cable industry An industry that was once a hodgepodge of
family-owned companies has become one of the nation's most visible and profitable oligopolies."
These trends have occurred throughout
the media , on a global scale.
The same consolidation is found in the airline industry, where deregulation "set off a
flurry of mergers" (as the Journal notes), "creating a short roster of powerful
giants. And consumers are, in many cases, paying the price." In fact, it's well known that
deregulation has facilitated an enormous wave of mergers and acquisitions since the 1980s.
(Similarly, the big businesses, and later the mergers, of the Gilded Age appeared in a time of
little public regulation.) All this market-driven oligopolization has certainly not increased
consumer freedom, or the freedom of anyone but the top fraction of one percent in wealth.
Speaking of communications and the media, another classic libertarian claim is hollow: far
from encouraging a rich and competitive diversity of information and opinion, the free market
tends to narrow the spectrum of opinion and information sources. When Hayek writes of
totalitarian governments that "The word 'truth' ceases to have its old meaning. It describes no
longer something to be found, with the individual conscience as the sole arbiter it becomes
laid down by authority," referring to the "spirit of complete cynicism as regards truth the
loss of the sense of even the meaning of truth," it is easy to think he's describing the mass
media in the heavily capitalist United States. For one thing, because of scale economies and
other market dynamics, over time fewer and fewer people or groups can afford to run, say, a
successful and profitable newspaper. Across the West, in the twentieth century competition
eventually weeded out working-class newspapers that had fewer resources than the capitalist
mass media, and the spectrum of information consumed by the public drastically narrowed.
"Market forces thus accomplished more than the most repressive measures of an aristocratic
state," to quote the authors of an important
study .
At the same time, the sources of information became less and less independent, due to the
development of the advertising market. Advertisers "acquired a de facto licensing power
because, without their support, newspapers ceased to be economically viable." As Edward Herman
says, it wasn't the final consumer's but the advertiser's choices that determined
media prosperity and survival, and hence the content (broadly speaking) of the news and opinion
pieces. Moreover, the media increasingly consisted of giant corporations who had basically the
same interests as advertisers anyway. The result corresponded less to Friedman's slogan Free to
Choose than to Edward
Bernays' slogan Free to Imagine That We Choose (because what we're choosing from is a
narrow
range of corporate and government propaganda ).
Capitalism vs. Freedom also has a chapter on "political freedom," and another on
the "freedom of future generations" -- which is nonexistent in a strictly capitalist society
because future generations have no money and therefore no power. They have to deal with
whatever market externalities result from their ancestors' monomaniacal pursuit of profit.
Including the possible destruction of civilization from global warming, a rather large
externality. Even in the present, the IMF has estimated that the "external" costs of using
fossil fuels, counting public health effects and environmental ramifications, are already $5
trillion a year. Again, this should suggest to anyone with a few neurons still functioning that
markets aren't particularly "efficient." Especially considering the existence of major public
goods that are undersupplied by the market, such as roads, bridges, sanitation systems, public
parks, libraries, scientific research, public education, and social welfare programs. What do
Friedman and Hayek think of these things? Well, Hayek was writing for a Western European
audience, so he had to at least pretend to be reasonable. "[T]he preservation of competition
[is not] incompatible with an extensive system of social services," he wrote, which leaves "a
wide and unquestioned field for state activity." Okay. But that's a significant concession.
Apparently his "libertarianism" wasn't very consistent.
For Friedman, public goods should be paid for by those who use them and not by a wealthy
minority that is being taxed against its wishes. "There is all the difference in the world," he
insists, "between two kinds of assistance through government that seem superficially similar:
first, 90 percent of us agreeing to impose taxes on ourselves in order to help the bottom 10
percent, and second, 80 percent voting to impose taxes on the top 10 percent to help the bottom
10 percent." Thus, the wealthy and powerful shouldn't have to pay taxes to maintain services
from which they don't directly benefit. We shouldn't subtract any of the positive freedom from
people who have an enormous amount of it (i.e., of power , the concentration of which
libertarians are supposed to oppose ) in order to give more positive freedom to people
who have very little of it. That would be unforgivably compassionate.
Most of Larson's chapter on political freedom consists of salutary reminders of how politics
actually works in the capitalist United States. Drawing on Thomas Ferguson's investment theory of party competition ,
Larson describes the political machinations of big business, the concerted and frequently
successful efforts to erode the positive and negative freedoms of the populace, the permanent
class war footing, the fanatical union-busting, the absurdly cruel austerity programs of the
IMF (which, again, serve but to crush popular freedom and power), and the horrifying legacy of
European and U.S. imperialism around the world. Readers who want to learn more about the dark
side of humanity can consult William Blum's Killing Hope ,
Naomi Klein's The Shock
Doctrine (which also describes Hayek and Friedman's love-affairs with neo-Nazi Latin
American generals), Robert Fisk's The Great War for
Civilization , and most of Noam Chomsky's books . In light of all these
practices and policies that have emerged, directly or indirectly, out of the dynamics of the
West's market economy, to argue that capitalism promotes human freedom is to be a hopeless
intellectual fraud and amoral minion of power.
(If that judgment sounds harsh, consider this gem from Hayek, directed against measures to
ensure worker security: "It is essential that we should relearn frankly to face the fact that
freedom can be had only at a price and that as individuals we must be prepared to make severe
material sacrifices to preserve our liberty." More exactly, working-class individuals have to
make severe sacrifices to preserve the liberty of the capitalist class.)
In fact, to the extent that we have freedom and democracy at all, it has been achieved
mainly through decades and centuries of popular struggle against capitalism, and
against vicious modes of production and politics (including slavery and Latin American
semi-feudalism) that have been essential to the
functioning of the capitalist world-economy. Göran Therborn's classic article " The
Rule of Capital and the Rise of Democracy " gives details, as does Howard Zinn's famous
People's History of the
United States .
Larson, unlike the charlatans whose work he reviews, actually does believe that
"concentrated power is opposed to human freedom," so he dedicates his final chapter to briefly
expositing a genuinely libertarian vision, that of socialism. Here I need only refer
to the work of such writers as Anton Pannekoek, Rudolf Rocker, Peter Kropotkin, Errico
Malatesta, Murray Bookchin, and others in the anarchist and/or left-Marxist tradition. There's
a lot of talk of socialism these days, but few commentators (except on the left) know what
they're talking about. For instance, like Hayek and Friedman, they tend to equate socialism
with state control, authoritarianism, the Soviet Union, and other boogeymen. This ignores the
fact that anarchism, which reviles the state, is committed to socialism. So virtually all
mainstream commentary on socialism is garbage and immediately refuted from that one
consideration alone. The basic point that conservatives, centrists, and liberals refuse to
mention, because it sounds too appealing, is that socialism means nothing else but worker and
community control. Economic, political, and social democracy. It is, in essence, a set of moral
principles that can theoretically be fleshed out in a variety of ways, for instance some
preserving a place for the market and others based only on democratic planning (at the level of
the neighborhood, the community, the firm, the city, the nation, etc.). The core of socialism
is freedom -- the absence of concentrated power -- not absolute equality.
Whether a truly socialist, libertarian society will ever exist is an open question, but
certain societies have approached the ideal more closely than others. The Soviet Union was, and
the U.S. is, very far from socialism, while Scandinavian countries are a little closer (since
the population generally has more freedom and power there than in the U.S. and the Soviet
Union). The Bolivian Constitution of
2009 is vastly closer to socialism, which is to say morality and the ideal of human
dignity, than the reactionary U.S. Constitution . On a smaller scale,
worker cooperatives -- see
this book -- tend to embody a microcosmic socialism.
Larson ends his book on the note sounded by Rosa Luxemburg a century ago: socialism or
barbarism . Margaret Thatcher's infamous declaration "There is no alternative" can now be
given a more enlightened meaning: there is no alternative to socialism, except the destruction
of civilization and maybe the human species. Morality and pragmatic necessity, the necessities
of survival, now coincide. Concentrated corporate power must be dismantled and democracy
substituted for it -- which is a global project that will take generations but is likely to
develop momentum as society experiences ever-greater crises.
In the end, perhaps Friedman, Hayek, and their ilk will be seen to have contributed to the
realization of a truly libertarian program after all, albeit indirectly. For by aiding in the
growth of an increasingly authoritarian system, they may have hastened the birth of a
democratic opposition that will finally tear up the foundations of tyranny and lay the
groundwork for an emancipated world. Or at least a world in which Friedmans and Hayeks can't
become intellectual celebrities. For now, I'd settle for that. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Chris Wright
The Ministry of Plenty ( Newspeak : Miniplenty ) is in control of
Oceania's planned
economy .
It oversees rationing of food , supplies , and goods . As told in Goldstein's book, the
economy of Oceania is very important, and it's necessary to have the public continually create
useless and synthetic supplies or weapons for use in the war, while they have no access to the
means of
production .
This is the central theme of Oceania's idea that a poor, ignorant populace is
easier to rule over than a wealthy, well-informed one. Telescreens often make reports on how Big Brother has been able
to increase economic production, even when production has actually gone down (see §
Ministry of Truth ).
The Ministry hands out statistics which are "nonsense". When Winston is adjusting some
Ministry of Plenty's figures, he explains this:
But actually, he thought as he readjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not
even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of
the material that you were dealing with had no connection with anything in the real world,
not even the kind of connection that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as
much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of time
you were expected to make them up out of your head.
Like the other ministries, the Ministry of Plenty seems to be entirely misnamed, since it
is, in fact, responsible for maintaining a state of perpetual poverty , scarcity and financial shortages.
However, the name is also apt, because, along with the Ministry of Truth, the Ministry of
Plenty's other purpose is to convince the populace that they are living in a state of perpetual
prosperity. Orwell made a similar reference to the Ministry of Plenty in his allegorical work
Animal Farm
when, in the midst of a blight upon the farm, Napoleon the pig orders the silo to
be filled with sand, then to place a thin sprinkling of grain on top, which fools human
visitors into being dazzled about Napoleon's boasting of the farm's superior economy.
A department of the Ministry of Plenty is charged with organizing state lotteries . These are very popular among the
proles, who buy tickets and hope to win the big prizes – a completely vain hope as the
big prizes are in fact not awarded at all, the Ministry of Truth participating in the scam and
publishing every week the names of non-existent big winners.
UPDAT The Bezzle: "MoviePass Played by Silicon Valley's Insane Rules" [ The
New Republic ]. "MoviePass, whose subscribers pay a monthly fee to see an unlimited number
of movies in most theaters in America, appears to be circling the drain. On Friday, the service
temporarily shut down after the company ran out of cash MoviePass' demise seemed inevitable, if
only because of simple math. The company paid theaters full price for the tickets, but
subscribers only paid $9.95 a month, so anyone who used MoviePass even once a month was costing
it money . But MoviePass is not an anomaly. Many of the largest tech companies employ a similar
strategy of burning cash in pursuit of rapid growth that could, theoretically, eventually be
turned into profit. As the New York Times's Kevin Roose argued earlier this year, only somewhat
hyperbolically, the '
entire economy is MoviePass now .'
Looking at tech peers in Silicon Valley (particularly Netflix, to which it was inevitably
compared) it should be no surprise that MoviePass settled on a simple formula: Take money from
venture capitalists, provide a below-market price for a popular service, and profit." •
Leaving open the question of why stupid money stays stupid for some firms, and not for
others. Nice paper there for somebody .
AaronB, your observations are always insightful and interesting. I wonder if you believe
in freewill at all, even in "insignificant" matters because time and sequence are all
important and such trivial events set up the really big ones in our lives.
"Human beings, in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free but as causally bound
as the stars in their motions." – Albert Einstein.
"... These laws allow a company that believes a foreign rival is selling a product below cost to request that the government impose special tariffs to protect it. Selling products below cost is called dumping, and the duties are called dumping duties. Often, however, the U.S. government determines costs on the basis of little evidence, and in ways which make little sense. To most economists, the dumping duties are simply naked protectionism. Why, they ask, would a rational firm sell goods below cost? ..."
"... Cartels work by restricting output, thereby raising prices. O'Neill's interest was no surprise to me; what did surprise me was the idea that the U.S. government would not only condone a cartel but actually play a pivotal role in setting one up. He also raised the specter of using the antidumping laws if the cartel was not created. These laws allow the United States to impose special duties on goods that arc sold at below a "fair market value," and particularly when they are sold below the cost of production. ..."
"... The reality is that the US empire was always conducting trade wars that included not only tariffs on specific products, but even deliberately created cartels. ..."
"... In the early 90s the Clinton administration uncritically adopted the neoliberal doctrine from Ronald Reagan and continued the big fraud against the majority of the Americans. ..."
"... On the one hand, the Clinton administration was selling the big fairy tale of neoliberalism to the American public: free market capitalism would bring prosperity for all through that trickle-down fiasco. And it was translated, as always, in further cuts in public spending - more tax-cuts for the super-rich. On the other hand, behind the scenes, the same administration was implementing the most aggressive protectionism in favor of some US corporations and against consumers. ..."
Donald Trump is using his trade wars to support the part of the US capital that has heavily
lost from free trade globalization, which is more powerful than ever in our days. This is also
part of the Trump agenda to persuade Americans for his "patriotic devotion" based on his
"America First" slogan.
The reality is that the US empire was always conducting trade wars that included not only
tariffs on specific products, but even deliberately created cartels.
In the early 90s the Clinton administration uncritically adopted the neoliberal doctrine from
Ronald Reagan and continued the big fraud against the majority of the Americans.
On the one hand, the Clinton administration was selling the big fairy tale of neoliberalism to
the American public: free market capitalism would bring prosperity for all through that
trickle-down fiasco. And it was translated, as always, in further cuts in public spending -
more tax-cuts for the super-rich. On the other hand, behind the scenes, the same administration
was implementing the most aggressive protectionism in favor of some US corporations and against
consumers.
In his book Globalization and its discontents , Joseph Stiglitz describes how the United
States under Clinton administration set up a cartel in favor of the US aluminum industry:
The United States supports free trade, but all too often, when a poor country does manage to
find a commodity it can export to the United States, domestic American protectionist interests
are galvanized. This mix of labor and business interests uses the many trade laws - officially
referred to as "fair trade laws," but known outside the United States as "unfair fair trade
laws"- to construct barbed-wire barriers to imports.
These laws allow a company that believes a foreign rival is selling a product below cost to
request that the government impose special tariffs to protect it. Selling products below cost
is called dumping, and the duties are called dumping duties. Often, however, the U.S.
government determines costs on the basis of little evidence, and in ways which make little
sense. To most economists, the dumping duties are simply naked protectionism. Why, they ask,
would a rational firm sell goods below cost?
During my term in government, perhaps the most grievous instance of U.S. special interests
interfering in trade - and the reform process - occurred in early 1994, just after the price of
aluminum plummeted. In response to the fall in price, U.S. aluminum producers accused Russia of
dumping aluminum.
Any economic analysis of the situation showed clearly that Russia was not dumping. Russia was
simply selling aluminum at the international price, which was lowered both because of a global
slowdown in demand occasioned by slower global growth and because of the cutback in Russian
aluminum use for military planes. Moreover, new soda can designs used substantially less
aluminum than before, and this also led to a decline in the demand.
As I saw the price of aluminum plummet, I knew the industry would soon be appealing to the
government for some form of relief, either new subsidies or new protection from foreign
competition. But even I was surprised at the proposal made by the head of Alcoa, Paul O'Neill:
a global aluminum cartel.
Cartels work by restricting output, thereby raising prices. O'Neill's interest was no surprise
to me; what did surprise me was the idea that the U.S. government would not only condone a
cartel but actually play a pivotal role in setting one up. He also raised the specter of using
the antidumping laws if the cartel was not created. These laws allow the United States to
impose special duties on goods that arc sold at below a "fair market value," and particularly
when they are sold below the cost of production.
I worked hard to convince those in the National Economic Council that it would be a mistake to
support O'Neill's idea, and I made great progress. But in a heated subcabinet meeting, a
decision was made to support the creation of an international cartel.
While I had managed to convince almost everyone of the dangers of the cartel solution, two
voices dominated. The State Department, with its close connections to the old-line state
ministries, supported the establishment of a cartel. The State Department prized order above
all else, and cartels do provide order. The old-line ministries, of course, were never
convinced that this movement to prices and markets made sense in the first place, and the
experience with aluminum simply served to confirm their views.
Rubin, at that time head of the National Economic Council, played a decisive role, siding with
State. At least for a while, the cartel did work. Prices were raised. The protfits of Alcoa and
other producers were enhanced. The American consumers - and consumers throughout the world -
lost, and indeed, the basic principles of economics, which teach the value of competitive
markets, show that the losses to consumers outweigh the gains to producers. Donald Trump is
using his trade wars to support the part of the US capital that has heavily lost from free
trade globalization, which is more powerful than ever in our days. This is also part of the
Trump agenda to persuade Americans for his "patriotic devotion" based on his "America First"
slogan.
The reality is that the US empire was always conducting trade wars that included not only
tariffs on specific products, but even deliberately created cartels.
In the early 90s the Clinton administration uncritically adopted the neoliberal doctrine from
Ronald Reagan and continued the big fraud against the majority of the Americans.
On the one hand, the Clinton administration was selling the big fairy tale of neoliberalism to
the American public: free market capitalism would bring prosperity for all through that
trickle-down fiasco. And it was translated, as always, in further cuts in public spending -
more tax-cuts for the super-rich. On the other hand, behind the scenes, the same administration
was implementing the most aggressive protectionism in favor of some US corporations and against
consumers.
In his book Globalization and its discontents , Joseph Stiglitz describes how the United
States under Clinton administration set up a cartel in favor of the US aluminum industry:
The United States supports free trade, but all too often, when a poor country does manage to
find a commodity it can export to the United States, domestic American protectionist interests
are galvanized. This mix of labor and business interests uses the many trade laws - officially
referred to as "fair trade laws," but known outside the United States as "unfair fair trade
laws"- to construct barbed-wire barriers to imports.
These laws allow a company that believes a foreign rival is selling a product below cost to
request that the government impose special tariffs to protect it. Selling products below cost
is called dumping, and the duties are called dumping duties. Often, however, the U.S.
government determines costs on the basis of little evidence, and in ways which make little
sense. To most economists, the dumping duties are simply naked protectionism. Why, they ask,
would a rational firm sell goods below cost?
During my term in government, perhaps the most grievous instance of U.S. special interests
interfering in trade - and the reform process - occurred in early 1994, just after the price of
aluminum plummeted. In response to the fall in price, U.S. aluminum producers accused Russia of
dumping aluminum.
Any economic analysis of the situation showed clearly that Russia was not dumping. Russia was
simply selling aluminum at the international price, which was lowered both because of a global
slowdown in demand occasioned by slower global growth and because of the cutback in Russian
aluminum use for military planes. Moreover, new soda can designs used substantially less
aluminum than before, and this also led to a decline in the demand.
As I saw the price of aluminum plummet, I knew the industry would soon be appealing to the
government for some form of relief, either new subsidies or new protection from foreign
competition. But even I was surprised at the proposal made by the head of Alcoa, Paul O'Neill:
a global aluminum cartel.
Cartels work by restricting output, thereby raising prices. O'Neill's interest was no surprise
to me; what did surprise me was the idea that the U.S. government would not only condone a
cartel but actually play a pivotal role in setting one up. He also raised the specter of using
the antidumping laws if the cartel was not created. These laws allow the United States to
impose special duties on goods that arc sold at below a "fair market value," and particularly
when they are sold below the cost of production.
I worked hard to convince those in the National Economic Council that it would be a mistake to
support O'Neill's idea, and I made great progress. But in a heated subcabinet meeting, a
decision was made to support the creation of an international cartel.
While I had managed to convince almost everyone of the dangers of the cartel solution, two
voices dominated. The State Department, with its close connections to the old-line state
ministries, supported the establishment of a cartel. The State Department prized order above
all else, and cartels do provide order. The old-line ministries, of course, were never
convinced that this movement to prices and markets made sense in the first place, and the
experience with aluminum simply served to confirm their views.
Rubin, at that time head of the National Economic Council, played a decisive role, siding with
State. At least for a while, the cartel did work. Prices were raised. The protfits of Alcoa and
other producers were enhanced. The American consumers - and consumers throughout the world -
lost, and indeed, the basic principles of economics, which teach the value of competitive
markets, show that the losses to consumers outweigh the gains to producers.
Paul Sliker: So, Michael, over the past few months the IMF has been sending warning
signals about the state of the global economy. There are a bunch of different macroeconomic
developments that signal we could be entering into another crisis or recession in the near
future. One of those elements is the yield curve, which shows the difference between short-term
and long-term borrowing rates. Investors and financial pundits of all sorts are concerned about
this, because since 1950 every time the yield curve has flattened, the economy has tanked
shortly thereafter.
Can you explain what the yield curve signifies, and if all these signals I just mentioned
are forecasting another economic crisis?
Michael Hudson: Normally, borrowers have to pay only a low rate of interest for a
short-term loan. If you take a longer-term loan, you have to pay a higher rate. The longest
term loans are for mortgages, which have the highest rate. Even for large corporations, the
longer you borrow – that is, the later you repay – the pretense is that the risk is
much higher. Therefore, you have to pay a higher rate on the pretense that the interest-rate
premium is compensation for risk. Banks and the wealthy get to borrow at lower rates.
Right now what's happened is that the short-term rates you can get by putting your money in
Treasury bills or other short-term instruments are even higher than the long-term rates. That's
historically unnatural. But it's not really unnatural at all when you look at what the economy
is doing.
You said that we're entering into a recession. That's just the flat wrong statement. The
economy's been in a recession ever since 2008, as a result of what President Obama did by
bailing out the banks and not the economy at large.
Since 2008, people talk about "look at how that GDP is growing." Especially in the last few
quarters, you have the media saying look, "we've recovered. GDP is up." But if you look at what
they count as GDP, you find a primer on how to lie with statistics.
The largest element of fakery is a category that is imputed – that is, made up –
for rising rents that homeowners would have to pay if they had to rent their houses from
themselves. That's about 6 percent of GDP right there. Right now, as a result of the 10 million
foreclosures that Obama imposed on the economy by not writing down the junk mortgage debts to
realistic values, companies like Blackstone have come in and bought up many of the properties
that were forfeited. So now there are fewer homes that are available to buy. Rents are going up
all over the country. Homeownership has dropped by abut 10 percent since 2008, and that means
more people have to rent. When more people have to rent, the rents go up. And when rents go up,
people lucky enough to have kept their homes report these rising rental values to the GDP
statisticians.
If I had to pay rent for the house that I have, could charge as much money as renters down
the street have to pay – for instance, for houses that were bought out by Blackstone.
Rents are going up and up. This actually is a rise in overhead, but it's counted as rising GDP.
That confuses income and output with overhead costs.
The other great jump in GDP has been people paying more money to the banks as penalties and
fees for arrears on student loans and mortgage loans, credit card loans and automobile loans.
When they fall into arrears, the banks get to add a penalty charge. The credit-card companies
make more money on arrears than they do on interest charges. This is counted as providing a
"financial service," defined as the amount of revenue banks make over and above their borrowing
charges.
The statistical pretense is that they're taking the risk on making loans to debtors that are
going bad. They're cleaning up on profits on these bad loans, because the government has
guaranteed the student loans including the higher penalty charges. They've guaranteed the
mortgages loans made by the FHA – Fannie Mae and the other groups – that the banks
are getting penalty charges on. So what's reported is that GDP growth is actually more and more
people in trouble, along with rising housing costs. What's good for the GDP here is awful for
the economy at large! This is bad news, not good news.
As a result of this economic squeeze, investors see that the economy is not growing. So
they're bailing out. They're taking their money and running.
If you're taking your money out of bonds and out of the stock market because you worry about
shrinking markets, lower profits and defaults, where are you going to put it? There's only one
safe place to put your money: short-term treasuries. You don't want to buy a long-term Treasury
bond, because if the interest rates go up then the bond price falls. So you want buy short-term
Treasury bonds. The demand for this is so great that Bogle's Vanguard fund management company
will only let small investors buy ten thousand dollars worth at a time for their 401K
funds.
The reason small to large investors are buying short term treasuries is to park their money
safely. There's nowhere else to put it in the real economy, because the real economy isn't
growing.
What has grown is debt. It's grown larger and larger. Investors are taking their
money out of state and local bonds because state and local budgets are broke as a result of
pension commitments. Politicians have cut taxes in order to get elected, so they don't have
enough money to keep up with the pension fund contributions that they're supposed to make.
This means that the likelihood of a break in the chain of payments is rising. In the United
States, commercial property rents are in trouble. We've discussed that before on this show. As
the economy shrinks, stores are closing down. That means that the owners who own commercial
mortgages are falling behind, and arrears are rising.
Also threatening is what Trump is doing. If his protectionist policies interrupt trade,
you're going to see companies being squeezed. They're not going to make the export sales they
expected, and will pay more for imports.
Finally, banks are having problems of they hold Italian government bonds. Germany is
unwilling to use European funds to bail them out. Most investors expect Italy to do exit the
euro in the next three years or so. It looks like we're entering a period of anarchy, so of
course people are parking their money in the short term. That means that they're not putting it
into the economy. No wonder the economy isn't growing.
Dante Dallavalle: So to be clear: a rise in demand for these short-term Treasuries is
an indication that investors and businesses find too much risk in the economy as it stands now
to be investing in anything more long-term.
Michael Hudson: That's exactly right.
Dante Dallavelle: OK. So we have prominent economists and policymakers, like
Geithner, Bernanke Paulson, etc., making the point that we need not worry about a future crisis
in the near term, because our regulatory infrastructure is more sound now than it was in the
past, for instance before 2008. I know you've talked a lot about the weak nature of financial
regulation both here at home in the United States and internationally. What are the
shortcomings of Dodd Frank? Haven't recent policies gutting certain sections of the law made us
more vulnerable, not less, to crises in the future?
Michael Hudson: Well, you asked two questions. First of all, when you talk about
Geithner and Bernanke – the people who wrecked the economy – what they mean by
"more sound" is that the government is going to bail out the banks again at public expense.
It cost $4.3 trillion last time. They're willing to bail out the banks all over again. In
fact, the five largest banks have grown much larger since 2008, because they were bailed
out. Depositors and companies think that if a bank is so crooked that it grows so fast that
it's become too big to fail, they had better take their money out of the local bank and put it
in the crooked big bank, because that's going to be bailed out – because the government
can't afford to let it go under.
The pretense was that Dodd Frank was going to regulate them, by increasing the capital
reserves that banks had to have. Well, first of all, the banks have captured the regulatory
agencies. They're in charge of basically approving Federal Reserve members, and also members of
the local and smaller bank regulatory agencies. So you have deregulators put in charge of these
agencies. Second, bank lobbyists have convinced Congress to de-tooth the Dodd Frank Act.
For instance, banks are very heavily into derivatives. That's what brought down AIG in 2008.
These are bets on which way currencies or interest rates will go. There are trillions of
dollars nominally of bets that have been placed. They're not regulated if a bank does this
through a special-purpose entity, especially if it does it through those that are in Britain.
That's where AIG's problems were in 2008. So the banks basically have avoided having to back up
capital against making a bad bet.
If you have bets over where trillions of dollars of securities, interest rates, bonds and
currencies are going to go, somebody is going to be on the losing side. And someone on the
losing side of these bets is going to go under, like Lehman Brothers did. They're not going to
be able to pay their customers. You're going to have rolling defaults.
You've also had Trump de-tooth to the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. So the banks
say, well, let's do what Wells Fargo did. Their business model is fraud, but their earnings are
soaring. They're growing a lot, and they're paid a tiny penalty for cheating their customers
and making billions of dollars off it. So more banks are jumping on the high-risk consumer
exploitation bandwagon. That's certainly not helping matters.
Michael Palmieri: So, Michael we've talked a little bit about the different
indicators that point towards a financial crisis. It's also clear from what you just stated
from a regulatory standpoint that the U.S. is extremely vulnerable. Back in 2008 many argue
that there was a huge opportunity lost in terms of transforming our private banking system to a
publicly owned banking system. Recently the Democracy Collaborative published a report titled,
The Crisis Next Time: Planning for Public ownership as Alternative to Corporate Bailouts
. That was put out by Thomas Hanna. He was calling for a transition from private to public
banking. He also made the point, which you've made in earlier episodes, that it's not a
question of if another financial crisis is going to occur, but when . Can you
speak a little bit about how public banking as an alternative would differ from the current
corporate private banking system we have today?
Michael Hudson: Sure. I'm actually part of the Democracy Collaborative. The best way
to think about this is that suppose that back in 2008, Obama and Wall Street bagman Tim
Geithner had not blocked Sheila Bair from taking over Citigroup and other insolvent banks. She
wrote that Citigroup had gambled with money and were incompetent, and outright crooked. She
wanted to take them over.
Now suppose that Citibank would had been taken over by the government and operated as a
public bank. How would a public bank have operated differently from Citibank?
For one thing, a public entity wouldn't make corporate takeover loans and raids. They
wouldn't lend to payday loan sharks. Instead they'd make local branches so that people didn't
have to go to payday loan sharks, but could borrow from a local bank branch or a post office
bank in the local communities that are redlined by the big banks.
A public entity wouldn't make gambling loans for derivatives. What a public bank
would do is what's called the vanilla bread-and-butter operation of serving small
depositors, savers and consumers. You let them have checking accounts, you clear their checks,
pay their bills automatically, but you don't make gambling and financial loans.
Banks have sort of turned away from small customers. They've certainly turned away from the
low-income neighborhoods, and they're not even lending to businesses anymore. More and more
American companies are issuing their own commercial paper to avoid the banks. In other words, a
company will issue an IOU itself, and pay interest more than pension funds or mutual funds can
get from the banks. So the money funds such as Vanguard are buying commercial paper from these
companies, because the banks are not making these loans.
So a public bank would do what banks are supposed to do productively, which is to help
finance basic production and basic consumption, but not financial gambling at the top where all
the risk is. That's the business model of the big banks, and some will lose money and crash
like in 2008. A public bank wouldn't make junk mortgage loans. It wouldn't engage in consumer
fraud. It wouldn't be like Wells Fargo. It wouldn't be like Citibank. This is so obvious that
what is needed is a bank whose business plan is not exploitation of consumers, not fraud, and
isn't gambling. That basically is the case for public ownership.
Paul Sliker: Michael as we're closing this one out, I know you're going to hate me
for asking this question. But you were one of the few economists to predict the last crisis.
What do you think is going to happen here? Are we looking at another global financial crisis
and when do you think, if so, that might be coming?
Michael Hudson: We're emphatically not looking for "another" global crisis, because
we're in the same crisis! We're still in the 2008 crisis! This is the middle stage of
that crisis. The crisis was caused by not writing down the bad debts, which means the bad
loans, especially the fraudulent loans. Obama kept these junk mortgage loans and outright fraud
on the books – and richly rewarded the banks in proportion to how badly and recklessly
they had lent.
The economy's been limping along ever since. They say there's been a recovery, but even with
the fake lying with statistics – with a GDP rise – the so-called "recovery" is the
slowest that there's been at any time since World War II. If you break down the statistics and
look at what is growing, it's mainly the financial and real estate sector, and
monopolies like health care that raise the costs of living and crowd out spending in the real
economy.
So this is the same crisis that we were in then. It's never been fixed, and it can't be
fixed until you get rid of the bad-debt problem. The bad debts require restructuring the way in
which pensions are paid – to pay them out of current income, not financializing them. The
economy has to be de-financialized, but I don't see that on the horizon for a while. That's s
why I think that rather than a new crisis, there will be a slow shrinkage until there's a break
in the chain of payments. Then they're going to call that he crisis.
Hillary will say it's the Russians who did it, but it really is Obama who did it. The
Democratic Party leadership is in the hands of Wall Street, and has not done anything to
prevent the same dynamics that caused the crisis in 2008 and are still causing the economy to
shrink.
Paul Sliker: That's exactly why I wanted to reframe that question, because I think a
lot of people look at economic and financial crises through just the simple paradigm of a
bubble and the bubble bursting. But I think you did a fine job of clarifying that.
Well Michael, as always, we could go on but we have to end here. Thank you so much for
joining us on The Hudson Report.
Michael Hudson: Well you've asked all the right questions.
Three weeks ago, former banker turned author Philip Augar launched his history of Barclays
since Big Bang (1986). A descendant of Mr Barclay was there. Both good guys. Augar is always
well worth reading.
The pair took a similar view to Hudson. They were a bit surprised that the public and / or
a utility bank option had not been pursued / pushed in 2008 and new competitors have not
emerged since, but think that the world is going back to 2008 and the incumbents won't
survive.
The duo think that what led to 2008 has not been resolved and that one could say the world
has been in recession since the early noughties, not 2008.
Further to banking, the consensus was the American giants would survive and prosper due to
the nature and scale of American markets, but European banks would become utilities and be
challenged by newcomers and public options. This time, there would be no escape for European
banks. The view was also that European banks would finally give up investment banking or
accept to become minor league players, not that there was anything wrong with that. The only
challenge to the US behemoths would be from China.
They support Glass-Steagall and ring fencing, reckoning that the ring fenced banks could
well emerge as the utilities.
The descendant of Mr Barclay left his family bank in 1999 and has led the family's efforts
in financial technology and funding platforms. He did not see Barclays as having much of a
long-term future. Aside, he mentioned their enthusiasm for China's one belt, one road
initiative and what spin offs could emerge from that.
I highly respect Professor Hudson's work and consider myself a MMT adherent, but his
explanation of the inverted yield curve is confused and confusing. The large demand for
short-term treasuries that he describes would lower short-term yields and steepen the yield
curve, not invert it. In fact, the curve is inverted because of higher demand for longer-term
treasuries because people don't expect to have a better place to invest for the near- to
middle term, which is consistent with expectations of poor econonic conditions over a
relatively longer period than is normal for "good" times.
I found that confusing as well. What's happened this year is that short-term rates have
increased steeply while longer-term rates have increased at a slower rate. So it's almost
like those who were in short term bonds are moving out of it and splitting the money between
stocks, cash, and long-term bonds. Could be aggregation bias by me on the splitting though
maybe those who were collectively in short term bonds are all different types of investors
and are now placing their bets in different ways.
Mr. Cole thank you for a better definition of the yield curve inversion. Very few writers
in the US financial press today offers a clear understanding of this concept, which the
general public readership can understand. I know, I've tried, and usually end up asking my
banker brother "what is this article (in the WSJ, recently) trying to say"? Even he takes a
little time to figure it all out
Short-term interest rates are determined by the Fed, and it is pushing up short-term rates
ostensibly to show down price rises (its euphemism for the possibility of wage increases). So
that is the "given." Long-term rates have moved up slightly – meaning that their bond
prices have declined a bit. There's so little chance of their going down much (and rising in
price), and so much chance of rates rising further (and lowering bond prices) that investors
are afraid of taking a loss during the bond's remaining maturity.
I should have emphasized the degree to which the Fed is setting short-term rates. Obviously,
there are still a lot of takers – but not enough to overwhelm the Fed's insistence of
raising rates.
My point is that there's not going to be a "recovery."
So, which (if any) industrialized countries are managing the economic Rubic's Cube
properly? The 'colors' of the cube being health care, employment, public education,
infrastructure maintenance, environment, & public safety?
Mr. Hudson, it'd be very beneficial if you'd describe how the Fed manipulates the system
so that increased purchases of US Treasury paper actually INCREASES the coupon paid!
I wonder if what's happening is that there's actually greater issuance of private debt on
the short-end of the curve. See for instance https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=kJIv . I
used the y-axis on the right hand side for the commercial paper issuance (bright red). The
left hand y-axis is for everything else – the rates. Notice how issuance increases and
decreases correlated with short term rates. Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.
So it would be good if somebody could weigh in on this. But to me it would make sense if the
private issuance drove the causation.
And more would have to be added onto that heap. Commercial paper isn't the only private
debt on the short-end, there's other non-bank debt issuance as well, but I'm not sure of
where to get data for that. That could explain what's been happening in the graph with short
term yields going up since 2016. Yes, the Fed Reserve is increasing their Fed Funds rate, but
I've seen discussion/arguments elsewhere that the Fed Reserve sets their rate so that it
remains competitive with what the private market is doing.
Michael,
You have it exactly right. The Fed's easy money policy has distorted the price of all
financial assets and has made asset flipping and the carry trade profitable, while long-term
investment in productive assets is too risky. The flattening of the yield curve is highly
suggestive that the Fed is taking away the punch bowl and we'll soon be struggling to
remember what it is that so many call a recovery.
Keep up the great work!!
Industrial Service Banking and Utility Banking are required if there is to be a recovery.
I believe I am perceiving this interview as it is titled. I add Industrial Service Banking
from my reading of "Killing the Host".
I've theorized that as regards Brexit & the Finance flight to France what is left in
the UK could aggressively solicit business for industry as opposed to banking for real estate
& risky financial instruments such as Derivatives.
As a working man who graduated high school in 1971 I feel as though my work life perfectly
tracks the common experience of a great many of us whose entire lives were sent on the war
time trajectories. Our working lives ended as they began. We gained nothing and were knocked
back to where ever we started.
If you didn't go into Finance, or Insurance or Real Estate, or Government Work you were
beat by "Forces Beyond Your Control".
In my own case it was from carpentry to Aviation Ground Services to Motion Picture
Technical services then back to carpentry. "Fed Policy, Fed Policy, Fed Policy "
Now I simply identify as "Beat".
We were made into the "Reinsurer of the Reinsurer AIG" and that is our doom since the
election of Trump and Minuchin.
Not much chance of Utility Banking. All of everything done is to keep pushing up land
assessed values and the banks just lend to the rentiers who get their checks from the
management companies while neo feudalism is made more & more recreated.
If there is to be any write offs or write downs they will come from some bigger more
traditional war, appears to be in the offing though that looks a lot like Apocalyptic Riot to
me.
While you can blame Obama for what happened under Timothy Geithner it was Clinton Unit One
that engineered the set up. That being Meyer Lansky Financial Engineering.
Thanks, P.S. My ideal political event would hence be a great Mechanized March on the US
Treasury in Washington. There I would see on stage all the greats of Economics working today.
Michael Hudson, Warren Mosler, Stephanie Kelton, Randall Wray, Bill Black, Robert Reich. The
American People are simply denied the benefits of their own Treasury is the way I see it.
Youtube is TV Land Lite. When the people are at least given the true story of why they are
forced into desperation for no reason other than the wealthy can and it is thrilling to them
to keep getting away with the whole thing. Certainly Jeff Bezos the national overseer of the
dispossessed is obviously just thrilled, simply thrilled. His and then Musk's Mars mission
mimic the Puritan immigration to the New World. Auto electrification and the Musk Power Wall
are valuable contributions to a possible future of some sort of Civilization. Gopsay policies
are fully dystopian. A Reinsurer's Revolt? Is there a phrase that will work?
Thanks you for making that point because I had the same thought when reading the piece
(but wouldn't have brought it up for fear of 2nd guessing those more knowledgeable than
me!).
And thanks to Mr. Hudson for clarifying the point – now it all makes a lot more
sense.
We're emphatically not looking for "another" global crisis, because we're in the same
crisis! We're still in the 2008 crisis! This is the middle stage of that crisis. The crisis
was caused by not writing down the bad debts, which means the bad loans, especially the
fraudulent loans. Obama kept these junk mortgage loans and outright fraud on the books
– and richly rewarded the banks in proportion to how badly and recklessly they had
lent.
The economy's been limping along ever since. They say there's been a recovery, but even
with the fake lying with statistics – with a GDP rise – the so-called
"recovery" is the slowest that there's been at any time since World War II. If you break
down the statistics and look at what isgrowing, it's mainly the financial and real estate
sector, and monopolies like health care that raise the costs of living and crowd out
spending in the real economy.
So this is the same crisis that we were in then. It's never been fixed, and it can't be
fixed until you get rid of the bad-debt problem. The bad debts require restructuring the
way in which pensions are paid – to pay them out of current income, not
financializing them. The economy has to be de-financialized, but I don't see that on the
horizon for a while. That's s why I think that rather than a new crisis, there will be a
slow shrinkage until there's a break in the chain of payments. Then they're going to call
that he crisis.
Hillary will say it's the Russians who did it, but it really is Obama who did it . The
Democratic Party leadership is in the hands of Wall Street, and has not done anything to
prevent the same dynamics that caused the crisis in 2008 and are still causing the economy
to shrink.
Love it when Michael Hudson says it was Obama not the Russians who did it, because his
words are truer than he knows (Obama's act of fraud when he classified Steele report so he
could spy on his political opponents so he could meddle in the election for Hillary).
About 2010, the CEO of one of the UK's largest retailers thought that the British economy
had been in a crisis for a lot longer than from August 2007. This was echoed recently by one
of the City's leading economists.
Interestingly, said CEO's successor reckons that, judging from retail footfall, the UK's
population is a few millions in excess of the official figure and this is what is driving
growth, albeit anaemic growth.
Thats a very important point about population. Its a major factor sometimes in why GDP PP
figures can be deceptive. Back in the 1990's in London it was considered a rule of thumb to
add one million people to the official census figures. Its not simply a case of illegal
immigrants – often its just a big floating population around Europe (construction
workers, casual workers, students on a year off), settling somewhere for a short while and
not bothering to register officially).
I recall in Ireland about 12 years ago when someone pointed out that the new census
figures for Polish and Chinese people were less than half the claimed circulation figures for
the main Polish and Chinese language newspapers the official response was . silence. Nobody
wanted to know.
In the US, our 'financial crisis' has morphed into a political crisis, and we're deeper
into a legitimacy crisis by the day.
The Dems can't seem to get it through their thick, dull sculls that Pelosi is perceived as
a Bailout Queen by a whole lot of 'flyover folks', no matter what else she manages to
achieve. She's become political poison, and she'll never stop wreaking of TARP. Ditto
Schumer. The GOP needs them both desperately in order to act like they're railing and wailing
against Big Gumint; unfortunately, as long as this stale drama continues, we're going to be
offered pallid incrementalism, because they can't seem to imagine revamping the system. Thus,
in a horrifying feedback loop, the delegitimacy spirals ever downward.
One reason the Dems need new leadership is to clean up the gridlock, but another reason is
to give some breathing room to initiatives like postal banking. I don't see it coming from
those who have held power, or who were anywhere near the TARP bailouts.
Which, I suppose, is my cue to go donate to some smart, tough Dems running for Congress
this year. (Fingers crossed!)
I already had similar thoughts but the article lays them out better than I could
write/say. The current whole system is basically the reason why I am buying Bitcoin et al. I
strongly believe that money itself should be 100% neutral, no government control over it.
Once you have government control that's where "the road to hell is paved with good
intentions". Gotta keep things "safe" – more government regulations make things safer
when it merely moves the actual risk underneath the rug. Purely an illusion.
Banks should be much smaller and that when the inevitable chaos happen (it's human nature,
cannot regulate it away) the smaller banks should go under without too much damage to the
whole economy. Lessons thus learned, etc. Now it's only a few giant banks. Making the giant
banks safer goes only so far best to be smaller and focus on government controls purely on
keeping banks small and stamping out unethical behavior.
Insane debt levels, insane housing pricing, insane medicine pricing, insane constant
military industrial complex, etc all symptoms of money emittance. I thought MMT would solve
much of the problems but realized that it still has central authorities emitting money no
good.
So Bitcoin et al it is. I will find out in 2030 whether I am correct on Bitcoin et al
being the money for the world or not. Don't bother telling me Bitcoin will never work it has
been around a decade now – it does have staying power. That alone made me look closer
into it. You should, too. If you don't agree, at least Bitcoin is a relatively uncorrelated
asset class
I am not rich enough, nor tech savvy enough, to invest in Bitcoin–but this slow
decline into oblivion is why I have always put my money into tangibles (antiques,
collectibles, jewelry). Fortunately I bought these things long ago and selling them now is
what's keeping me afloat.
I got an unexpected bounty and had the tech savvy (+ NN Taleb inspired courage) to invest
in Bitcoin – before any vulture capitalists' siphons got involved. Fortunately I bought
these things long ago and selling them now is what's keeping me afloat.
I think that cryptos can be good (or bad) investments. I think their capacities as far as
replacing government issued currencies (i.e., being the mediums of exchange for most
transactions) are extremely limited on a mass scale, as day to day life for most people would
be even more chaotic. I don't think people have thought through how regular, day to day, life
would be for most people in a world where there are no more dollars, Yen, RMB, etc. Most
people don't have the capacity to invest in anything, since the costs of basic things have
been outpacing wage growth for decades. So, what might make you some money or what might be a
good investment doesn't mean that crypto currencies can be used on a mass level, and it
doesn't mean that the profits from appreciating crypto currencies are benefiting anything
more than a very small percentage of the public. Same as stocks, bonds and every other
financial investment where ownership is highly concentrated. Them being a unit of account
would be problematic, as any item you could imagine would have no one value in any country. A
pair of shoes wouldn't be worth X amount of dollars in the US, or X Yen in Japan. The shoes
would be worth X amount of Bitcoin, X amount of this crypto, x amount of that crypto, there
would no longer be a unit of account in the same way there is now. How in the hell would a
poor working stiff possibly exist in that world? Maybe you could operate in that world, most
couldn't, and wouldn't want to either. Maybe we could pass around Rothbard books and convert
people to the church. Some might suggest that Bitcoin could be the unit of account and that
other crypto currencies would be fixed to Bitcoins, but who would decide this, and if we have
a democracy, why would people vote to support that? Would the big, evil state decide this?
How are taxes paid with cryptos? Let's say you have a few cryptos, and they collapse in
value. You're in trouble as far as redeeming your debt to the state. And how would the state
calculate how someone would pay taxes? What would they do a bunch of different crypto
currencies? During the free banking era, there were thousands of currencies. Do they have
values for each currency, which change second by second with those currencies? You owe this
much in this currency, this much in this one, etc. Naïve to think it would work, or that
most people would want that world.
How exactly would we possibly deal with the environmental crisis with cryptos? We already
are struggling with the non-market nature of most of these impacts, and it is already
extremely difficult to address the environmental crisis, given the complex and chaotic nature
of decentralized market systems. Now, we're going to further fracture society and our economy
by using a multitude of currencies? Mises had a book called Planned Chaos. This world would
just be chaos, as planning would be next to impossible. Maybe that is the point.
Personally, I think cryptos are actually far more un-democratic than government issued
currencies. At least with US dollars, we could democratize money creation, we could have
transparent public banks (seems just fine with the Bank of North Dakota), we could have some
say on what we spend on, invest in, etc. Not the case now because of corruption, but it would
be the case if we democratized the economy and the political system. That isn't possible with
cryptos. That's a big reason why the libertarians love them.
To me, this stuff is just more financial "innovation". Saying that they are good
investments is one thing, I have a problem with them personally beyond that, and I don't have
tons of faith in libertarians in regards to their relationship to objective reality.
As Professor Hudson makes clear, it is not the size of the bank that matters, it is the
fact that banks were allowed to expand into derivative trading and what I being no expert
would call 'financial wheeling and dealing.' His recommended fix is not that the banks become
smaller but that there be an alternative public banking system that doesn't do all those
there things.
One point I would enlarge upon is fixing the blame for all of this. Clearly Obama fell
down in extending huge loans from public coffers to big banks in trouble, and Professor
Hudson explains clearly how the failures of 2008 occurred, and that we are still in that
recession – it has most definitely felt like it! And thanks to him for also explaining
clearly how the failures of that critical time have been converted into pluses by finagling
the factors going into GDP. We knew it had to be phony; he has explained how. So, who else is
to blame? I'll go right back to that late signing of Bill Clinton that gave away the store.
Bill and Newt, partners in crime. At the time I didn't know what they were doing, but you can
bet they did.
Not seeing any of this gloom and doom and stress and vacancies here in the DC area. It is
go-go-go, buildings sprouting like weeds, luxury apartments (not condos) and few vacancies in
existing buildings. Developers are starting new phases because the previous phases are full.
The thing that will put a more immediate kibosh on this steam train is construction costs
– Mr. Trump's tariffs and immigration policies have already hit construction hard, and
a sub that might have projected $8mil last year early in design is quoting $10mil now that
it's time to sign a contract (that's unusual).
All that said, most of us building these things have no idea who is paying $5k/mo in rent
but that's what it is. For now it's not letting up. Maybe next year.
One thing that does line up with the article to some extent is the mixed-use retail spots
are not filling up. But retail is being universally crushed by online sales.
London is not so different and some regional markets like Edinburgh, Oxford and
Cambridge.
UK retail is getting crushed, even at the high end, but that is due to the immiseration of
the population, fraud and private equity "investment". Online sales are a convenient fig
leaf.
My friends in A/E/construction in NYC say it's similar to DC at the moment. I was up over
the weekend (chicken bus delayed 3hrs in massive traffic btw) and noted all the new
skyscrapers and other interesting new bldgs -- wow Chelsea and the Meatpacking dist are hot
hot hot! The highline sure did a lot for that area. Lèched les vitrines all over town
and didn't notice many street level retail vacancies in Manhattan. It's sure to come crashing
down spectacularly but that does not seem imminent.
The DC area is awash with the largesse of the imperial treasury. Of course thing would
look different there. I live out near the WV border and the overflow even splashes around
here. Life is easy next to the spring in the desert.
Great article once again. This subject of public ownership of banks is close to my heart
because here in South Africa it's one that always finds itself pushed to the periphery of
public discourse. The argument used to discredit the notion is one of "scarcity of
skills/expertise" and it goes something like this: banking and finance institutions are
highly specialized entities requiring highly skilled operators to manage them "successfully",
and such expertise aren't in plentiful supply in the public sector. As such, a public bank
would be faced with only two options:
1. Parachute specialists (Jamie Dimon running a public bank) private banks to come and run
it while keeping them on a very tight leash ( surely a highly undesirable prospect for people
used to operating in environments where leashes are anathema)
2. Collapsing into dysfunction and insolvency due to the ineptitude of its lowly skilled
management plucked from other public sector entities
But to my mind, Prof Hudson clears this up by debunking the complexity myth. Complexity in
banking is a function of financial engineering and public banks would have no business
conjuring up such elaborate schemes. The assumption underpinning this argument is that public
banks would be structured the same as current private banks, thus requiring the same "skills"
to run, which clearly wouldn't be the case.
It's a great podcast. The question for me is why are there personal debts at all? The
reason is clear of course, but those of us who are victimized from these schemes from young
adulthood (for a lot of us it is merely going to college/university, which, incidentally, we
were repeatably told to do from early childhood, or much worse, young mothers just going to
the Dollar Store to feed their kids) –whom among us did not freak out when Obama said
(regarding the banksters), "We must look forward and not backward." When I heard that I knew
I was played, big time. We all were. In my opinion, anything going forward that does not
confront that piece of shit statement, ever, and forever, is just delusional.
90+ degrees in Munich today. Reality is setting in.
The real problem is that we're still in the aftermath of when the bubble
burst in 2008, that all of the growth in the economy has only been in the financial sector, in
the monopolies -- only for the 1 percent. And it's as if there are two economies, and the 99
percent has not grown. And so, the American economy is still in a debt deflation. So the real
problem is, stocks have doubled in price since 2008, and the economy, for most people,
certainly who listen to your show, hasn't grown at all.
So, finally, the stocks were inflated really by the central bank, by the Fed, creating an
enormous amount of money, $4.5 trillion, essentially, to drop over Wall Street to buy bonds
that have pushed the yields down so high -- so low, to about 0.1 percent for government bonds,
that pension funds and investors say, "How can we make money?" So they buy stocks. And they
borrowed at 1 percent to buy up stocks that yield maybe 4 percent. But who are the largest
people who buy the stocks? They're the companies themselves that have done stock buybacks.
They're the managers of the companies that have used their earnings, essentially, to push up
stock prices so they get more bonuses. Ninety precent of all the earnings of the biggest
companies in America in the last five years have gone for stock buybacks and dividends. It's
not being invested. It's not building new factories. It's not employing more people.
So, the real problem is that we're in a nonrecovery in America, and Europe is in an absolute
class war of austerity. That's what the eurozone is, an austerity zone. So that's not growing.
And that's really what's happening. And all that you saw on Monday was just sort of like a
shift, tectonic shift, is people realizing, "Well, the game is up, it's time to get out." And
once a few people want to get out, everybody sees the game's up. AMY GOODMAN : Michael Hudson,
your book is titled Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the
Global Economy . Explain what you mean.
MICHAEL HUDSON : Well, most people think of parasites as sort of just taking, taking money
from the economy, and the 1 percent is sort of sucking up all the income from the 99 percent.
But in nature, what parasites do, they don't simply take. In order to take, they have to take
over the brain of the host. And economists have a word, "host economy." It's for a foreign
country that lets American investors in. Smart parasites help the host grow. But the parasite,
first of all, has to make the host believe that the intruder is actually part of the body, to
be nurtured and taken care of. And that's what's happened in national income accounting in
America and in other countries. The newspapers and the media -- not your show, but most of the
media -- treat the financial sector as if that's really the economy, and when the stock market
goes up, the economy is going up. But the economy isn't going up at all.
And the financial sector somehow depicts itself as the brains of the economy, and it would
like to replace government. What Larry Summers said is what -- governments have to pay their
debts by privatizing more, essentially, by doing what Margaret Thatcher did in England. That's
his solution to the crisis: All the governments have to do is balance the budget, sell
everything to Wall Street on credit, and we won't have any more problem. And that's basically
-- the financial sector is almost at war, not only against labor, as most of the socialists
talk about, but against governments and against industry. It's cannibalizing industry. So now
most of the corporations in America are using their income not to do what industrial capitalism
did a century ago, not to build more factories and employ more people and make more profits;
they're just using it, as I said, to push it to pay dividends and to buy back their shares and
to somehow manipulate the financial sector in the stock prices, not the economy as a whole. So
there's been a divergence between the real economy and what I call the -- economists call the
FIRE sector -- finance, insurance and real estate. And they're going in separate
directions.
AMY GOODMAN : You are -- you have been an adviser to the Syriza party in Greece. You're a
friend of the former finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis. Can you talk about what's happening
there now and what that bodes for the economy, not only in Greece, but in Europe, maybe even
here?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Well, the story begins, actually, about four years ago, when Greece had a
very large foreign debt, taken on basically by the military government and what followed. And
it was obvious that as soon as the PASOK , the socialist party, came in, they said, "Look, the
debt's much larger than we thought. We can't pay it." And they were going to write it down. The
IMF looked in and said, "Greece can't pay the debts. We've got to write them down." The board
looked in, said they can't pay the debts. But then the European central banks came in and said,
"Look, our job as central bankers is to support the banks. Greece owes the debt to the,
essentially, French banks and German banks, and we've got to support them." So, despite the
fact that the IMF was pushing for a debt write-down four years ago -- the head of the IMF at
that time, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, wanted to run for president of France, and he was told by
French President Sarkozy, "Well, wait a minute, if French banks hold most of Greek debts, you
can't, at the IMF , say that we're going to write down the debts." So they didn't. And
meanwhile, the eurozone said, "We won't let you, the IMF , be part of our program, the troika,
if you don't pretend that Greece can pay the debt."
So Greece was left with a huge debt. It was pushed into depression. The GDP fell worse than
it did in the 1930s. Finally, the Syriza party came in, in January, and Varoufakis and Tsipras
thought, "Well, then, OK, we can explain to the finance ministers of Europe that you can't
expect to push Greece into a depression, push more austerity, and somehow austerity will enable
us to repay the debt. That's crazy." And he thought that he could reason with them. And the
Europeans, who he was reasoning with, the central bankers, said, "We're not here to talk about
economics. We're lawyers. We're here to collect money. It doesn't matter that you're going to
go into a depression. It doesn't matter that you're going to have to have another 20 percent of
your population emigrate. We're only here to collect the payments. And if you don't pay, then
we're going to pull the plug."
And they pulled the plug on the Greek banks a few months ago and said, "We're not going to
accept any of the bank transfers, payments with Greek banks here. So, if you're exporting and
you want credit for export, you're not going to give it to you. We're going to treat Greece
like America treated Cuba and America treated North Korea. You're going to be the North Korea
of Europe if you don't succumb, surrender and pay." And that's why Tsipras said, "Oh, my -- we
don't want to bring an absolute, you know, total breakdown, because that would bring the right
wing to power." Varoufakis said, well, he agrees that there's no alternative but to sort of
surrender for the present and try to join hands with Italy, Spain and Portugal, but he wasn't
going to be the administrator of the depression. So you had the referendum, and the Greeks now
say, "Well, no matter what, we're not going to pay." And the eurozone says, "Then we're going
to just wreck you, or smash and grab."
AMY GOODMAN : I want to ask you very quickly about presidential politics, about two of the
Republican presidential candidates, Jeb Bush and John Kasich. Both worked for Lehman Brothers,
Kasich after he ran for -- after he was a congressman; Jeb Bush, according to The Wall
Street Journal , Bush signed on with Lehman after leaving the Florida Governor's Mansion,
making it clear he wanted to work as a hands-on investment banker. I believe he made something
like $14 million working for Lehman and then Barclays.
MICHAEL HUDSON : Well, almost -- both parties are basically run by Wall Street. The
Democratic Party, ever since Bill Clinton, was run by Robert Rubin. And all of the secretaries
of the treasury, the officials, have basically come from Goldman Sachs, especially Tim
Geithner. One of the problems in Greece, by the way, was that Obama and Geithner, coming from
the Rubin group, met at the Group of Eight meetings and told -- were told, basically, Greece,
"You have to pay, because the American banks have made so many big bets on Greek bonds that if
Greece doesn't repay" -- this is back in 2011 -- "then the American banks will go under, and if
we go under, we're going to pull Europe down." So, the American banks basically -- we're
talking about Wall Street investment firms. They don't -- they're called investment bankers,
but they don't invest. They gamble. And we're really much more in casino capitalism than
finance capitalism.
So you have Wall Street people basically running politics, whether they're the actual
politicians -- Obama didn't work on Wall Street, but he worked with the real estate families.
No matter who the president is, they're going to appoint Treasury heads and Fed, Federal
Reserve, heads from Wall Street. Wall Street has a veto power on all the major Cabinet
positions, and so, essentially, the economy is being run by the financial sector for the
financial sector. That's the problem with politics in America today.
What about part-times who are are exploited to the mex and paied very little... This is
sophistry to assume that everybody has full time job in compemporary America.
...A single person taking a minimum wage job would earn an annual income of $15,080. A
married couple would earn $30,160. By the way, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
less than 4 percent of hourly workers in 2016 were paid the minimum wage. That means that over
96 percent of workers earned more than the minimum wage. Not surprising is the fact that among
both black and white married couples, the poverty rate is in the single digits. Most poverty is
in female-headed households.
"... Unfortunately, if we scan the regions of our planet, we immediately see that humanity has disappointed God's expectations. Man, especially in our time, has without hesitation devastated wooded plains and valleys, polluted waters, disfigured the earth's habitat, made the air unbreathable, disturbed the hydrogeological and atmospheric systems, turned luxuriant areas into deserts and undertaken forms of unrestrained industrialization, degrading that "flowerbed" – to use an image from Dante Alighieri (Paradiso, XXII, 151) – which is the earth, our dwelling-place. ..."
Unfortunately, if we scan the regions of our planet, we immediately see that humanity has
disappointed God's expectations. Man, especially in our time, has without hesitation devastated
wooded plains and valleys, polluted waters, disfigured the earth's habitat, made the air
unbreathable, disturbed the hydrogeological and atmospheric systems, turned luxuriant areas
into deserts and undertaken forms of unrestrained industrialization, degrading that "flowerbed"
– to use an image from Dante Alighieri (Paradiso, XXII, 151) – which is the earth,
our dwelling-place.
"... As Bishop Athanasius Schneider recently opined in an interview , "the powerful of our world, the Western states" support groups like ISIS "indirectly." As a result, civilians get killed, and a prolonged bloodbath between warring religious factions ensues, thus ruining thousands, if not millions, of lives. ..."
"... Persons who espouse this warped ideology are what political scientists refer to as neoconservatives. To put it in Catholic terms, neoconservatives seek to once and for all obliterate the Social Kingship of Christ by constructing a world order rooted in the Freemasonic Social Kingship of Man. For decades neocons have preyed on the patriotism of ordinary Americans to get them to fight unjust wars on behalf of Arab theocrats and Jewish Zionists, the real behind-the-scenes power brokers. ..."
Super Tuesday and Super Saturday came and went. As expected, Donald Trump dominated the competition.
Sort of.
While Trump did exceptionally well in states like New Hampshire, South Carolina and elsewhere in the South, The Donald has stumbled
as of late, coming in second to Ted Cruz in a number of recent contests.
Trump will likely expand his delegate lead in the coming weeks. However, he won't arrive at the Republican convention with enough
of them to secure the nomination outright.
If that happens, the oligarchs in the Republican Party will do everything they can at the convention to deny Trump that which
would rightfully be his.
It's been rumored that Mitt Romney will be called upon by the establishment to save the Party of Lincoln from being "torn asunder."
Some Republicans say they simply won't vote for Mr. Trump. Others suggest running a third party "conservative" candidate.
However it shakes out, if reaction to Romney's anti-Trump press conference held earlier this month indicates anything, it's that
refusing the billionaire from New York the nomination if he has the majority of delegates would literally break the GOP in two.
Before discussing what a Trump victory would mean for the Republican Party, let's backtrack a bit and try to put this man's candidacy
into context. If possible, a Catholic context.
American "exceptionalism"
Since the Second World War but most especially since the early 1990s, a cabal of intellectuals desirous of global empire have
hubristically argued that it is America's duty to advance "freedom" and "democracy" to "the people" of the world, all in the name
of bringing about a lasting "peace."
Of course, when these men speak of "freedom" what they really mean is massive economic inequality and social hedonism. And when
these men speak of "democracy" what they truly mean is rigged elections with candidates that they and not "the people" get to pick.
(See the U.S.-backed coup that took place in Ukraine in February 2014 for evidence of this.)
Despite the lofty language used to trick Americans into supporting this political pyramid scheme, the reality is that bringing
about this so-called "peace" is a dirty business.
For one, the U.S. essentially bribes countries into joining NATO. Economically sanctioning those who refuse to do so.
Two, when leaders from sovereign Middle Eastern nations are no longer viewed as politically useful, they're assassinated. Of course,
the more diplomatic way to put it is "so and so has to go! "
And three, sustaining American imperialism oversees requires the funneling of billions of taxpayer dollars to Islamic states like
Saudi Arabia and providing firearms to "moderate rebels" in countries most people can't locate on a map.
As Bishop Athanasius Schneider recently opined
in an interview , "the powerful of our world, the Western states" support groups like ISIS "indirectly." As a result, civilians get killed, and a prolonged bloodbath between warring religious factions ensues, thus ruining thousands,
if not millions, of lives.
The end game, of course, is to pick off Eastern European countries one by one in order to expand NATO (something the U.S. promised
decades ago they wouldn't do) so that "liberal democracy" can be established not only there but also in North Africa and, most importantly,
in Russia.
Globalism
Persons who espouse this warped ideology are what political scientists refer to as neoconservatives. To put it in Catholic terms, neoconservatives seek to once and for all obliterate the Social Kingship of Christ by constructing
a world order rooted in the Freemasonic Social Kingship of Man. For decades neocons have preyed on the patriotism of ordinary Americans to get them to fight unjust wars on behalf of Arab theocrats
and Jewish Zionists, the real behind-the-scenes power brokers.
While paying lip service to social conservatism, limited government, constitutionalism and state's rights these war hawks hijacked
the Republican Party and surgically transformed it into a weak-kneed, open borders, bloodthirsty Frankenstein in the service of international
elites.
Though insurgent candidates like Pat Buchanan in the 1990s reminded folks about the direction this clandestine group of war criminals
was leading the country, the monied class acted quickly and decisively. Buchanan's warnings about 1) the looming culture wars 2)
the harm cheap labor abroad would have on the American middle class 3) the problems associated with not securing the border and 4)
the debt and death required with being the policeman of the world were easily tamped down, thanks in no small part to the help of
the corporate media.
Since that time Americans have had to choose between presidential candidates who, at the end of the day, were nothing more than
cogs in the globalist's wheel.
Enter Trump
Donald J. Trump has the temperament of an eight year old child. He mocks. He condescends. He can't give specifics to half the
things he talks about. And I don't trust him on social issues. Put another way, I have the same concerns about Mr. Trump as American
Conservative contributor Rod Dreher does
.
For good reason, these facts and many others, have a large number of folks, including many Catholics, deeply disturbed.
At the same time, much of his public image is an act, and he has turned out be a shrewder political operator than I expected.
No one, and I mean no one, predicted he would have this much success.
People support Trump not necessarily because of his policies but because of what he represents. And what he represents is the
frustration ordinary, mostly white, Americans have towards politics in general. More specifically, the antipathy they have towards
the feckless politicians the Republican Party has nominated over the past thirty years who have largely failed to halt the social
and economic decay of the United States.
Against the neocons
Despite his inconsistency, immaturity and, at times, imbecility, Trump has been clear on several important policies. Policies
that can be appreciated from a Catholic viewpoint.
In
an article for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Daniel Mcadams outlines where Trump differentiates himself from
the war hawks in his party.
First, according to Mcadams Trump states "the obvious" when he says "the Iraq war was brought to us by the liars of the neoconservative
movement" and that it was a "total disaster" for the rest of us who "are forced to pay for their fantasies of world domination."
Second, Trump wants to "actually speak with Russian President Vladimir Putin to see if US/Russia differences can be worked out
without a potentially world-ending nuclear war."
Third, although Trump is "arguing that he is hugely pro-Israel" he is "nevertheless suggesting that if the US is to play a role
in the Israel/Palestine issue the US side should take a neutral role in the process."
Fourth, Trump is also calling out the "idiotic neocon advice" that resulted in the overthrowing of Gaddafi in Libya that has led
to "the red carpet" being "laid down for ISIS" in that failed state.
And lastly, Trump is "suggesting that it may be a good thing that Russia be bombing ISIS into oblivion and that we might want
to just sit back and let that happen for once."
Push back
The ruling class disdains each and every one of these positions. And for good reason.
By talking about the Iraq War and claiming Bush lied about it, Trump reminds us about the back room dealings and costs, both human
and monetary, spreading "freedom" and "democracy" necessarily entails. And by drawing attention to the disastrous situation in Libya,
Trump shines light on the foolishness of nation building abroad and the need to nation build at home. Obviously, all of this causes
voters to have a less favorable view of foreign intervention in the future.
By painting Putin as a potential ally instead of a "thug," Trump de-programs Americans from thinking of the Russian President
as Josef Stalin re-incarnated. It also disabuses ordinary citizens from seeing everything through an us-versus-them prism. Having
a villain to point at evokes patriotism at home and affirms Americans in the moral right-ness of the pursuit of spreading "liberty."
Neocons have long understood this. And Trump could potentially reverse that paradigm.
Furthermore, by taking a "neutral" stance towards Israel, Trump is indicating that he may put American interests ahead of Zionist
interests. In other words, Trump would likely approach the Middle East in a way that holds Israel to the same moral standards as
others. Realizing that this may result in an American president who refuses to be silent about the terrorist attacks Israelis commit
against Palestinians on an almost daily basis, the globalists and their cronies in the media have been quick to compare Trump with,
you guessed it, Adolf Hitler.
Going forward
Neoconservatives, in short, are apoplectic over a possible Trump presidency. His success could mean their demise, if only for
a short while.
To be sure, it is difficult to know who Trump would surround himself with if he were to win the presidency. Would he call up Henry
Kissinger? Would he seek the advice of the Council on Foreign Relations? I don't know.
But what I do know is that as of right now Trump appears to have all the right enemies. Enemies that include the neo-Catholic
neocon community. Read
here .
Now, don't expect the elites to go silently into the night. The attacks in the coming days and weeks will only get more vicious.
We've already seen how quickly they brought up "the 1930s." Additionally, more than 100 self-identified "members of the Republican
national security community" have signed an
open letter
excoriating Trump for his foreign policy views, adding that they are "united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency."
Unsurprisingly, some of them have said
they would support Hillary Clinton, a Democratic neocon, instead of Trump in the general election.
So much for party loyalty.
In brief, a Trump nomination means the internationalists would no longer dictate the terms of America's economic and foreign policy.
Moreover, if Trump arrives at the Republican convention with the majority of delegates and is denied the nomination, it will be clear
to all that we live in country that is anything but a democracy.
Indeed, far from being a "breaking" of the GOP in two, wouldn't a Trump victory be nothing more than a re-calibration of the party
to what it stood for historically? A party that serves the will of the American people instead of global elites?
I utterly despise Neocons, whether in Politics & Government or as Catholic Church Commentators.
This is why I come to akacatholic.com, The Remnant Newspaper & Catholic Family News.
In Politics, Conservatives would use The Bomb, while Neocons would engage in "Protective Reaction", whatever that means.
In The Case of Louie, Mike Matt, Chris Ferrara, John Vennari, Dr John Rao & Ann Barnhardt, one is told the truth as it occurred.
There are no "Sweeps Week Specials" by People who are financed by Fat Cats & sound like Shills for said Fat Cats, while broadcasting
from a Miniaturized Version of The CBS Broadcast Center on West 57th Street, from a Suburb of The Motor City, who tells everyone
that what The Pope Said was a Mistranslation, while making Hay of Cardinal Dolan, passing wind on the Uptown Platform of the IND
6th Avenue Subway, all while the Polemicist is telling the World that The SSPX is in Schism. No, THAT Guy, despite the Bells &
Whistles, is a Neo Catholic, who in many cases, cannot get his facts straight.
The NeoCatholics are the ones telling people that Girl Altar Servers are OK because the Pope says so. Ditto, Sancte Communion
A Mano & Altar Tables facing the Congregation.You know WHO They Are.
But something I have noticed is that when it comes to Intelligent Conversation on the message boards, the Neo Catholics will
not tolerate dissent vis a vis their position. The one with his broadcast centre is a classic example, with commenters practically
forced to pay homage to The Fearless Leader's Position, even when not well researched.
Those who hold the Traditional Catholic Position, allow True Discussion on matters Catholic.
Traditional Catholic is true Freedom, without being patronizing. I cannot say that for a certain site, which charges $10 per
month for Premium Membership.
You've reminded me of how the totally neocon and cuckservative National Review now rigorously–with all the fanaticism of the Stasi–polices
its comments section. It's unreal.
"... By Lynn Parramore, Senior Research Analyst at the Institute for New Economic Thinking. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Squeezed: Why Our Families Can't Afford America ..."
"... You will not do as well as your parents ..."
"... Life is a struggle to keep up. Even if you achieve something, you will live in fear of losing it. America is not your land: it belongs to the ultra-rich. ..."
"... The Vanishing Middle Class ..."
"... Capital in the Twenty-First Century ..."
"... Global Wealth Report ..."
"... Professed as a right for individual freedom and empowerment, in reality it serves to suppress disobedience with shame. If you earn like shit -- it's gotta be because YOU are shit. Just try harder. Don't you see those OTHER kids that did well! ..."
"... I think one crucial thing that has to change is the culture of extreme individualisation. ..."
"... die Plutonomisten und Bolshewisten! ..."
"... That the article brings "fear of robots" into the discussion is a tell that the writer does not want to mention that it is the competition from others in the world wide labor force that depress USA wages. ..."
"... We have been commodified since before we were even born, to the point where opportunities for what Lave and Wenger would call "legitimate peripheral participation" in the kinds of work that yield real, humane, benefits to our communities are scant to nonexistent for most of us. Something has gone deeply awry in this core social function at the worst possible time in human history. ..."
"... That was a wonderful post, very moving, thank you. These kind of testimonies are very important because they show the real human cost of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is truly a death cult. Please find an alternative to alcohol. Music, art, nature, etc. ..."
"... At least you are self aware. Most people are not. As for the Ship of Status, let it sink. Find a lifeboat where you feel comfortable and batten down for the Roaring (20)40s yet to come. Once you find something to work for, the bad habits will lose much of their hold on you. As long as you don't slide into alcoholism, you have a chance. ..."
"... Neoliberalism, the economic policy that is private sector "free market" driven, giving the owners of capital free, unfettered reign. Created by libertarians like Fredrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, they sold it to the nation but failed to mention that little peccadillo about how privatization of government would usher in economic fascism. ..."
"... "An extreme form of laissez-faire individualism that developed in the writings of Hayek, Friedman and Nozick they are also referred to as libertarians. They draw on the natural rights tradition of John Locke and champion's full autonomy and freedom of the individual." ..."
"... What they meant was ECONOMIC freedom. They despise social freedom (democracy) because civil, labor, health, food safety, etc., rights and environmental protections put limits on their profits. ..."
"... The "maximizing shareholder value" myth turns people into psychopaths . The entire neoliberal economic policy of the past 40 years is based on the false assumption that self-interest is the driving evolution of humanity. We're not all psychopaths, turns out. We're social beings that have mainly used cooperation to get us through these thousands of years of existence. ..."
"... "If the IMF is to shake its image as an inward-looking, out-of-touch boys club, it needs to start taking the issue seriously. The effect of the male dominance in macroeconomics can be seen in the policy direction of the organisation: female economists are more likely to be in favour of Government-backed redistribution measures than their male counterparts. ..."
"... Of course, the parochial way in which economics is perceived by the IMF, as nothing more than the application of mathematical models, is nothing new. In fact, this is how mainstream economics frequently is taught in universities all over the world. Is it any wonder that the IMF has turned out as it is?" ..."
"... "Economics students are forced to spend so much time with this complex calculus so that they can go to work on Wall St. that there's no room in the course curriculum for the history of economic thought. ..."
"... So all they know about Adam Smith is what they hear on CNN news or other mass media that are a travesty of what these people really said and if you don't read the history of economic thought, you'd think there's only one way of looking at the world and that's the way the mass media promote things and it's a propagandistic, Orwellian way. ..."
"... The whole economic vocabulary is to cover up what's really happening and to make people think that the economy is getting richer while the reality is they're getting poorer and only the top is getting richer and they can only get rich as long as the middle class and the working class don't realize the scam that's being pulled off on them." ..."
"... "I often joke with my fellow country neighbors that it costs a hundred bucks to simply leave the house. It's not a joke anymore. At this point those still fighting for a paltry 15.00 should include a hundred dollar per day walk out your front door per diem." ..."
"... This is a stark and startling reality. This reality is outside the framework of understanding of economic struggle in America that is allowed by the corporate neoliberal culture/media. ..."
"... As the Precariat grows, having watched the .1% lie, cheat and steal – from them, they are more likely to also lie, cheat and steal in mortgage, employment and student loan applications and most importantly and sadly, in their dealings with each other. Everybody is turning into a hustler. ..."
"... Economics was always far too dangerous to be allowed to reveal the truth about the economy. ..."
"... "The labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers." ..."
"... Capitalism had two sides, the productive side where people earned their income and the parasitic side where the rentiers lived off unearned income. The Classical Economists had shown that most at the top of society were just parasites feeding off the productive activity of everyone else. ..."
"... The early neoclassical economists hid the problems of rentier activity in the economy by removing the difference between "earned" and "unearned" income and they conflated "land" with "capital". They took the focus off the cost of living that had been so important to the Classical Economists to hide the effects of rentier activity in the economy. ..."
"... The landowners, landlords and usurers were now just productive members of society again. It they left banks and debt out of economics no one would know the bankers created the money supply out of nothing. Otherwise, everyone would see how dangerous it was to let bankers do what they wanted if they knew the bankers created the money supply through their loans. ..."
"... The cost of living = housing costs + healthcare costs + student loan costs ..."
"... An unexpected consequence of globalization is that a lot of people see how thing are done, elsewhere. ..."
"... Part of me doesn't feel sorry at all for the plight of middle-class Americans. When times were good they were happy to throw poor and working-class people under the bus. I remember when the common answer to complaints about factory closings was "you should have gotten an education, dummy." Now that the white-collar middle class can see that they are next on the chopping block they are finding their populist soul. ..."
The children of America's white-collar middle class viewed life from their green lawns and
tidy urban flats as a field of opportunity. Blessed with quality schools, seaside vacations and
sleepover camp, they just knew that the American dream was theirs for the taking if they hit
the books, picked a thoughtful and fulfilling career, and just, well, showed up.
Until it wasn't.
While they were playing Twister and imagining a bright future, someone apparently decided
that they didn't really matter. Clouds began to gather -- a "dark shimmer of constantly
shifting precariousness," as journalist Alissa Quart describes in her timely new book "
Squeezed:
Why Our Families Can't Afford America ."
The things these kids considered their birthright -- reputable colleges, secure careers, and
attractive residences -- were no longer waiting for them in adulthood.
Today, with their incomes flat or falling, these Americans scramble to maintain a semblance
of what their parents enjoyed. They are moving from being dominant to being dominated. From
acting to acted upon. Trained to be educators, lawyers, librarians, and accountants, they do
work they can't stand to support families they rarely see. Petrified of being pushed aside by
robots, they rankle to see financial titans and tech gurus flaunting their obscene wealth at
every turn.
Headlines gush of a humming economy, but it doesn't feel like a party to them -- and they've
seen enough to know who will be holding the bag when the next bubble bursts.
The "Middle Precariats," as Quart terms them, are suffering death by a thousand
degradations. Their new reality: You will not do as well as your parents . Life is
a struggle to keep up. Even if you achieve something, you will live in fear of losing it.
America is not your land: it belongs to the ultra-rich.
Much of Quart's book highlights the mirror image of the downwardly mobile middle class Trump
voters from
economically strained regions like the Midwest who helped throw a monkey wrench into
politics-as-usual. In her tour of American frustration, she talks to urbanites who lean liberal
and didn't expect to find themselves drowning in debt and disappointment. Like the
falling-behind Trump voters, these people sense their status ripped away, their hopes
dashed.
If climbing up the ladder of success is the great American story, slipping down it is the
quintessential tragedy. It's hard not to take it personally: the ranks of the Middle Precariat
are filled with shame.
They are somebodies turning into nobodies.
And there signs that they are starting to revolt. If they do, they could make their own mark
on the country's political landscape.
The Broken Bourgeoisie
Quart's book takes a sobering look at the newly unstable bourgeoisie, illustrating what
happens when America's off-the-rails inequality blasts over those who always believed they
would end up winners.
There's the Virginia accountant who forks over nearly 90% of her take home pay on care for
her three kids; the Chicago adjunct professor with the disabled child who makes less than
$24,000 a year; and the California business reporter who once focused on the financial
hardships of others and now faces unemployment herself.
There are Uber-driving teachers and law school grads reviewing documents for $20 an hour --
or less. Ivy Leaguers who live on food stamps.
Lacking unions, church communities and nearby close relatives to support them, the Middle
Precariats are isolated and stranded. Their labor has sputtered into sporadic contingency: they
make do with short-term contracts or shift work. (Despite the much-trumpeted low unemployment
rate, the New York Times
reports that jobs are often subpar, featuring little stability and security). Once upon a
time, only the working poor took second jobs to stay afloat. Now the Middle Precariat has
joined them.
Quart documents the desperate measures taken by people trying to keep up appearances,
relying on 24/7 "extreme day care" to accommodate unpredictable schedules or cobbling together
co-living arrangements to cut household costs. They strain to provide things like academic
tutors and sports activities for their kids who must compete with the children of the wealthy.
Deep down, they know that they probably can't pass down the cultural and social class they once
took for granted.
Quart cites a litany of grim statistics that measure the quality of their lives, like the
fact that a middle-class existence is now 30% more expensive than it was twenty years ago, a
period in which the price of health care and the cost of a four-year degree at a public college
nearly doubled.
Squeezed is especially detailed on the plight of the female Middle Precariat, like
those who have the effrontery to procreate or grow older. With the extra burdens of care work,
pregnancy discrimination, inadequate family leave, and wage disparities, (not to mention sexual
harassment, a subject not covered), women get double squeezed. For women of color, often
lacking intergenerational wealth to ease the pain, make that a triple squeeze.
The Middle Precariat in middle age is not a pretty sight: without union protection or a
reliable safety net they endure lost jobs, dwindled savings, and shattered identities. In one
of the saddest chapters, Quart describes how the pluckiest try reinvent themselves in their 40s
or 50s, enrolling in professional courses and certification programs that promise another shot
at security, only to find that they've been scammed by greedy college marketers and deceptive
self-help mavens who leave them more desperate than before.
Quart notes that even those making decent salaries in the United States now see themselves
barred from the club of power and wealth. They may have illiquid assets like houses and
retirement accounts, but they still see themselves as financially struggling. Earning $100,000
sounds marvelous until you've forked over half to housing and 30% to childcare. Each day is one
bit of bad luck away from disaster.
"The spectacular success of the 0.1 percent, a tiny portion of society, shows just how
stranded, stagnant, and impotent the current social system has made the middle class -- even
the 10 percent who are upper-middle class," Quart writes.
Quart knows that the problems of those who seem relatively privileged compared many may not
garner immediate sympathy. But she rightly notes that their stresses are a barometer for the
concentration of extreme wealth in some American cities and the widening chasm between the very
wealthy and everybody else.
The Dual Economy
The donor-fed establishment of both political parties could or would not see this coming,
but some prescient economists have been sounding the alarm.
In his 2016 book The Vanishing Middle Class ,
MIT economist Peter Temin detailed how the U.S. has been
breaking up into a "dual economy" over the last several decades, moving toward a model that
is structured economically and politically more like a developing nation -- a far cry from the
post-war period when the American middle class thrived.
In dual economies, the rich and the rest part ways as the once-solid middle class begins to
disappear. People are divided into separate worlds in the kinds of jobs they hold, the schools
their kids attend, their health care, transportation, housing, and social networks -- you name
it. The tickets out of the bottom sector, like a diploma from a first-rate university, grow
scarce. The people of the two realms become strangers.
French economist Thomas Picketty provided a stark formula for what happens capitalism is
left unregulated in his 2015 bestseller, Capital in the Twenty-First
Century . It goes like this: when the rate of return on the investments of the wealthy
exceeds the rate of growth in the overall economy, the rich get exponentially richer while
everyone becomes poorer. In more sensible times, like the decades following WWII, that rule was
mitigated by an American government that forced the rich pay their share of taxes, curbed the
worst predations of businesses, and saw to it that roads, bridges, public transit, and schools
were built and maintained.
But that's all a fading memory. Under the influence of political money, politicians no
longer seek a unified economy and society where the middle class can flourish. As Quart
observes, the U.S. is the richest and also the most unequal country in the world, featuring the
largest wealth inequality gap of the two hundred countries in the Global Wealth Report
of 2015.
Who is to Blame?
Over and over, the people Quart interviews tend to blame themselves for their situation --
if only they'd chosen a different career, lived in another city, maybe things wouldn't have
turned out this way. Sometimes they point the finger at robots and automation, though they
arguably have much
more to fear from the wealthy humans who own the robots.
But some are waking up to the fact it is the wealthy and their purchased politicians who
have systematically and deliberately stripped them of power. Deprivations like paltry employee
rights, inadequate childcare, ridiculously expensive health care, and non-existent retirement
security didn't just happen . Abstract words like deregulation and globalization
become concrete: somebody actually did this to you by promoting policies that leave you high
and dry.
As Quart indicates, understanding this is the first step to a change of consciousness, and
her book is part of this shift.
Out of this consciousness, many individuals and organizations are working furiously and
sometimes ingeniously to alter the negative trajectory of the Middle Precariat. Quart outlines
proposals and developments like small-scale debt consolidation, student debt forgiveness,
adequately subsidized day care, and non-traditional unions that could help.
America also has a track record of broad, fundamental solutions that have already proven to
work. Universal basic income may sound attractive, but we already have a program that could
improve the lot of the middle class if expanded: Social Security.
Right now, a worker stops having to pay Social Security tax on any earnings beyond $128,400
-- a number that is unreasonably low because the rich wish to keep it so. Just by raising that
cap, we could the lower the retirement age so that Americans in their 60s would not have greet
customers at Walmart. More opportunities would open up to younger workers.
The Middle Precariat could be forgiven for suspecting that the overlords of Silicon Valley
may have something other than altruism in mind when they tout universal basic income. Epic tax
evaders, they stand to benefit from pushing the responsibility for their low-paid workers and
the inadequate safety net and public services that they helped create onto ordinary
taxpayers.
Beyond basic income lies a basic fact: the American wealthy do not pay their share in taxes.
In fact, American workers pay
twice as much in taxes as wealthy investors. That's why infrastructure crumbles, schools
deteriorate, and sane health care and childcare are not available.
Most Americans realize that inequality has to be challenged through the tax code: a
2017 Gallup poll shows that the majority think that the wealthy and corporations don't pay
enough. Politicians, of course, ignore this to please their donors.
And so the Middle Precariat, like the Trump voters, is getting fed up with them.
From Depressed to Energized
Quart astutely points out that income inequality is being written into the law of the land.
Funded the efforts of billionaires like the Koch brothers, politicians have
altered laws and constitutions across the country to cement the dual economy through
everything from restricting voting rights to defunding public education.
Several Middle Precariats in Squeezed have turned to independent or renegade
candidates like Bernie Sanders who offer broad, substantial programs like debt-free college and
universal health care that address the fissures in their lives. They are listening to
candidates who are not afraid to say that markets should work for human beings, not the other
way around.
If Donald Trump's political rise "can be understood as an expression of the gulf between
middle-class citizens and America's ruling classes," as Quart observes, then the recent surge
of non-establishment Democratic candidates, especially democratic socialists, may be the next
phase of a middle class revolt.
Recent surprise victories in Pennsylvania and New York in the Democratic primaries by female
candidates openly embracing democratic socialism, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who
bested Democratic stalwart Joe Crowley by running for Congress on a platform of free Medicare
and public college tuition for all, may not be the blip that establishment Democrats hope. In
New York, democratic socialist Julia Salazar is looking to unseat long-time state senator
Martin Dilan. Actress
Cynthia Nixon , running against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, has just proclaimed herself
a democratic socialist and promises to raise taxes on the rich and boost funding for public
schools. Michelle Goldberg recently announced in the New York Times that "
The Millenial Socialists are Coming ," indicating the intense dislike of traditional
politics in urban centers. These young people do not think of things like debt-free college or
paid family leave as radical: they see it done elsewhere in the world and don't accept that it
can't be done in America.
Historically, the more affluent end of the middle class tends to identify with and support
the wealthy. After all, they might join their ranks one day. But when this dream dies, the
formerly secure may decide to throw their lot in with the rest of the Precariats. That's when
you have the chance for a real mass movement for change.
Of course, people have to recognize their common circumstances and fates. The urban denizens
of New York and San Francisco have to see what they have in common with middle class Trump
voters from the Rust Belt, as well as working class Americans and everybody else who is not
ultra-rich.
If the growing ranks of Precariats can work together, maybe it won't take a natural
catastrophe or a war or violent social upheaval to change America's unsustainable course of
gross inequality. Because eventually, something has to give.
I think one crucial thing that has to change is the culture of extreme
individualization.
Professed as a right for individual freedom and empowerment, in reality it serves to
suppress disobedience with shame. If you earn like shit -- it's gotta be because YOU are
shit. Just try harder. Don't you see those OTHER kids that did well!
Part of the blame is on New Age with it's quazi-buddhist narrative: basically, everything
is perfect, and if you don't feel it that way, it's because you are tainted with envy or
weakness.
Thus what is in fact a heavily one-sided battle -- is presented as a natural order of
things.
I believe we need a new framework. A sort of mix of Marx and Freud: study of the
subconscious of the social economy. The rich not just HAPPEN to be rich. They WANT to be
rich. Which means that in some way they NEED others to be poor.
Of course, I'm generalizing. And some rich are just really good at what they do. These
rich will indeed trickle down, they will increase the well-being of people. But there are
others. People working in insurance and finance. And as their role in the economy grows -- as
does their role in politics, their power. They want to have more, while others would have
less.
But behind it all are not rational thoughts, not efficiency, but psychological trauma,
pain of the soul. Without addressing these matters, we will not be able to change the
world.
I'm sorry if my thoughts are somewhat fragmented. It's just something I've been thinking
of a lot since I started reading NC, discovering MMT and heterodox approaches in general.
The problem is the perception the Democratic Party is reliable as a partner. The culture
wasn't a problem in 2008 when the Democratic candidate was perceived as wanting to raise
taxes, pass universal health care, and end the wars.
====Part of the blame is on New Age with it's quazi-buddhist narrative: basically,
everything is perfect, and if you don't feel it that way, it's because you are tainted with
envy or weakness.
That's where I first heard of this theoretical link. I think that it's flat out right and
post-WWII psycho-babble has seeped into society in pernicious ways (along with everything
else, breakdown of nuclear family, etc). Unfortunately, can't prove it like Euclid.
"A sort of mix of Marx and Freud"– the " Frankfurt School " is a start, with the
realization of "the culture industry" as force majeure in the "heavily one-sided
battle." And ditto recommendation of "The Century of the Self."
Responding to Sergey P: I think one crucial thing that has to change is the culture of extreme
individualisation.
There are really only two alternatives to individualism. There is Durkheim-ian "society,"
in which we are all in this together – interdependent. I think this is still an
appropriate lens for a lot of smaller cities and communities where people really do still
know each other and everyone wants the community to thrive. And, of course, it is the only
way to think about human society nested inside a finite Earth. But it can only work on a
larger scale through mediating "institutions" or "associations." All the evidence shows,
consistent with the piece, that precariousness by itself weakens social institutions –
people have less time and money to contribute to making them work well.
And then there is Marx-ian "class." Which is to say, we are not all individuals but we are
not all of one group. There are different groups with different interests and, not
infrequently, the interests of different groups are opposed – what is good for one is
bad for another – and if power is unequal between groups (either because some groups as
groups have more power than others or because individuals with more power all have the same
group affinity), then powerful groups will use that power to oppress others. In that case,
the only remedy is to try to systematically empower the weak and/or disempower the strong.
This also requires collective action – institutions, associations, government –
and it is again noted that our collective institutions, most notably unions, have been
seriously weakened in the last 40-60 years.
The real world doesn't always fit into neat categories. Trump's America First is an appeal
to the "society" of USAmerica. Maybe there will be some improvements for working people. But
the argument in the piece, perhaps not as clearly stated as I would like, is that the
interests of the (former) middle class – as a class – have diverged from the
interests of the upper class. Changing that equation requires collective action.
Naturally one must quote the great Frank Herbert from his novel Dune:
"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them
free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."
'We already have a program that could improve the lot of the middle class if expanded:
Social Security.'
Never mind expanding it -- even the existing Social Security program is less than 20%
funded, headed for zero in 2034 according to its trustees. Scandalously, these trustees owe
no fiduciary duty to beneficiaries. Old Frank wanted pensioners to be forever dependent on
his D party. How did that work out for us?
Take a look at the transmittal letter for the 2018 trustees report, released last month.
Two public trustee positions are "VACANT," just as they were in last year's transmittal
letter:
Just above these blank spaces is the signature of one Nancy Berryhill, "Acting
Commissioner of Social Security." But wait --
On March 6, 2018, the Government Accountability Office stated that as of November 17,
2017, Berryhill's status violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which limits the time a
position can be filled by an acting official; "[t]herefore Ms. Berryhill was not authorized
to continue serving using the title of Acting Commissioner after November 16." Berryhill
declared, "Moving forward, I will continue to lead the agency from my position of record,
Deputy Commissioner of Operations."
By June 5th, Berryhill was still impersonating the Acting Commissioner, legally or
not.
Summing up, even the trustees' one-page transmittal letter shows that Social Security is
treated as a total and complete Third World joke by the US federal government.
Yeah, yeah. Gubmint can't do nuthin' rite. How about we take our government back from the
plutocrats and set SS on solid footing again. There are no impediments other than the will of
the people to use our power. Now that the Boomers are moving off all sorts of things, like
'thinking', and 'logic', will become prevalent again.
Never mind expanding it -- even the existing Social Security program is less than 20%
funded, headed for zero in 2034 according to its trustees. Scandalously, these trustees owe
no fiduciary duty to beneficiaries. Old Frank wanted pensioners to be forever dependent on
his D party. How did that work out for us?
Correct, then the system will eventually be totally reliant on taxes coming in. According
to 2011 OASDI
Trustees Report
Beginning in 2023, trust fund assets will diminish until they become exhausted in 2036.
Non-interest income is projected to be sufficient to support expenditures at a level of 77
percent of scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion in 2036, and then to decline to
74 percent of scheduled benefits in 2085
The benefits are never going to go completely away, the benefits will decrease if nothing
is done. Things can be done to change this, such as an increasing the the cap on earnings,
raising new revenues, etc. This is not exactly an "end of the world" scenario for SSI.
Also, no one complained when the excess SSI tax collected "Social security trust fund" was
used to keep interest rates down by purchasing Government bonds.
The whole tax angle is a complete red herring. Raising the cap is not the answer.
FICA is "the most regressive tax" the country imposes. Eliminating FICA altogether, doing
away with the "trust fund" and the pretense that SS is not the government taking care of it's
elderly citizens but is workers taking care of themselves, is the answer. If the emphasis in
Quart's book on the rise of a new democratic socialism means anything, it means reconciling
with the notion that it is OK for the government to take measures to ensure the welfare of
the people. Pay-as-you-go SS can become simply the re-assumption of our collective
responsibility to take care of our own, as a society, not as individuals.
I would be fine with that if I could trust the Federal government to do the right thing.
The problem is that we have too many people invested in the system, and I don't trust the
Federal government to not screw people over in a new system. You know what will happen, they
will set up a two tiered system where people over a certain age will keep their benefits, and
the new people will get a system that is completely crapified or means tested.
Well-put The only way to eliminate the constant refrain of "but SS is (insert blithering
comment on entitlement spending), is to shift resources to people rather than armies for the
SuperRich.
So we should just ignore the fact that our own Govt has "borrowed" $2.8 Trillion, at
least, from the SS Trust Fund so far and can't (won't) pay it back?
This "borrowing" should be illegal and I believe that "Old Frank" would be rolling in his
grave if he knew that would happen.
And I sincerely doubt his intentions were to get SS on the books in order to keep us
beholden to the Dem Party. And if that were true it is obvious that his party doesn't agree.
If they did they wouldn't be assisting in gutting the program.
The whole concept of creating and maintaining a multi-trillion dollar "trust fund" was
irrevocably flawed. When the surplus payroll taxes were "invested" in government bonds, they
entered the government's general fund and were promptly spent. The money is gone. That's why
it's on the books as a debt owed to the Social Security administration. There are no actual
assets behind the fund. It's just one part of the government owing money to another part of
the government.
However, what would the alternative have been? Investing in the crap shoot known as the US
stock market? No thanks. Or setting the funds aside in a bank account, where they would cease
circulating through the economy? That wouldn't have worked either, as all dollars in
circulation would have eventually ended up there, causing massive deflation.
None of these are workable. We should have gone on a strictly pay-as-you-go basis. If
payroll taxes generated more revenue than was necessary, we should have cut payroll taxes
and/or raised benefits. And if they fall short, we should raise payroll taxes and/or cut
benefits.
Today, we cover about 95% of benefits with payroll taxes. The remainder comes from "trust
fund redemptions", where general fund monies are given to the SSA to cover the shortfall.
Given that our government is already running a deficit, this means more borrowing (or
money-printing, depending on how you look at things).
When the "trust fund" is depleted, but SSA will lack the legal authority to claim any more
general fund monies, but it would be quite easy for Congress to change the rules to simply
state that "any SSA shortfall will be covered by the general fund". And I predict they will
do so in 2034, as it would take less than a month of constituents complaining about reduced
benefits to force even the strictest of deficit hawks to cave.
Or maybe they'll get creative and instead raise rates on the interest that the trust fund
earns. Right now it's a 3% rate, but if Congress were to double or triple it, the trust fund
would last much longer. [As would the debt owed to the SSA.] Heck, if they multiplied the
interest rate by a factor of 11, then they could theoretically dispense with payroll taxes
entirely. Right?
Yes, SS has contributed NOT ONE PENNY to the deficit and the reason it accumulated a
surplus was so people could collect later. Now, they want to say that old surplus shouldn't
count. That's thievery.
tired old tripe and how much is the US military funded? I can answer that for you. It's
ZERO. 0% funded! Take your heterodox BS to a bunch of freshman impressionables – it is
only tolerated here because you are a fine writer and interesting as hell and know almost all
there is about economic liberalism.
Wow. So let's go full SSCodex for a bit and push this trend out to the limit.
While the unwashed masses remain a market for big Ag, big Pharma, big Auto, big (online)
Retail, and a few others, it seems like the predatory 'fund' segment of the FIRE elite has
moved on to devouring larger prey (capitalist autophagy?). The unbankable precariat are
beneath their notice now, like pennies on the sidewalk.
So in that case, the 1% of the 0.1% has evolved beyond 'exploitation' in any Marxist
sense. It is now indifferent to the very life or death of the precariat, at home or abroad,
still less their security or advancement. It needs them neither for consuming nor producing,
nor for building ziggurats.
(Just so long as the pitchforks aren't out – but that's what the credentialed minion
20% is for. And drones).
Here Disposables, have some more plastic and painkillers. Be assured the Alphas will be
live tweeting the Pandemic, or Chicxulub 2.0, from Elon's luxury robot-serviced survival
capsules (oh, you thought those were for use on Mars? Silly rabble!)
It's like that DKs mosh pit classic: "Uncounted millions whisked away / the rich will have
more room to play"
[I exaggerate, of course, for illustration. Slightly.]
I think you can extend this analysis to the current U.K. Conservative Party. Commentators
have started to notice that the Brexiteer wing of the party seems completely impervious to
claims Brexit will harm the economy. Are the Tories no longer the natural party of British
business, they ask?
Using your logic, we can say that a fund-interest-dominated Tory party simply has no
interest in or need for the "ordinary" bits of the British business community anymore. What
it wants are shorting and raiding opportunities, and from that vantage point a catastrophic
Brexit is very attractive. Put these interests in coalition with a voter base largely living
on guaranteed incomes and retirement funds of one sort or another and you have the surreal
spectacle of an entire governing party and its supporters who are no longer anchored to the
"real" economy at all. Yes, it's an exaggeration but it's an exaggeration that explains a few
things, I think.
You both need to read the 2005 leaked Citigroup "plutonomy memo", if you haven't yet. Very
bright minds called it a decade ago, that the global economy isn't even an economy any longer
in any traditional sense. This is part one: https://delong.typepad.com/plutonomy-1.pdf
Great link. From page one, Citigroup thinks the global imbalance is a great opportunity.
Nothing new here. For years I've been reading about stock and futures manipulations–and
vulture capitalists–that cause people to die or kill themselves. The rich don't care;
they see it as a way to make more money. And then you wonder why I've been talking revolution
for years as well?
Answer: Add the US wasting its blood and cash meddling in other countries' affairs.
"honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." bueller ?
Ironic as multilateralist/globalist/fan of US interventions George Soros supposedly
provided some of the seed money for the Institute for New Economic Thinking.
I just want to not die earlier than necessary because I can't afford health care. I'd also
like to stop worrying that I'll spend my golden years homeless and starving because of some
disaster headed my way. I gave up on status a long time ago, and am one of those mentioned
who has little pity for the top 10%.
Sounds like a good book. I shall have to pick it up from my library, since buying new
books is a stretch.
Nearly all income growth in the United States since the 1970s has gone into income
obtained by the rich other than wages and salaries, like capital gains, stock options,
dividends, partnership distributions, etc. To capture overall economic growth to which the
entire society has contributed, Social Security benefits should be tied to economic growth,
smoothed for the business cycle. If people believe benefit increases require tax increases,
the tax should be applied to all earnings, not just salary/wages. Raising the $128,400 cap on
income subject to SS taxes would thus increase taxes on the lower rungs of the upper middle
class but not really address the problem.
I apologise in advance for being blunt and oversimplifying the matter, but at the end of
the day, (in my very humble and possibly uninformed opinion) nothing short of a mass
beheading would work. The 0.1% doesn't really seem, uh, willing to let go of their often
ill-gotten billions, and when they do (i.e. charities and such), they often end up being some
kind of scam. I refuse to believe that the Zuckerberg-types operate their foundations out of
genuine philanthropy. Acquisitions and mergers like Disney buying Fox or Bayer gobbling up
Monsanto don't contribute anything to the well-being of the 99% either, and I think that's
and understatement.
If there's going to be some kind of revolution, it needs to happen before the logical
conclusion of rampaging capitalism. the OCP-type megacorp with its own private army. And, if
there indeed is a revolution, what's next?
Case in point: as a public school teacher who has been opposing so-called education reform
for two decades, I can assure you that the "venture/vulture philanthropy" model that infests
the education world has absolutely nothing to do with improving education, and everything to
do with busting the teachers unions, privatizing the schools and turning them into drilling
grounds for training young people to accept the subordination, surveillance, tedium and
absurdity that awaits them in the workplace. For those lucky enough to have jobs.
As a result of this phenomena, I periodically suggest a new term on the education blogs I
post on: "Malanthropy:" the process of of using tax exempt, publicly subsidized entities to
directly and indirectly support your financial and political interests, but which are harmful
to the public good"
Clear and compelling analysis, although still a little MMT challenged. About to turn 70, I
vividly remember living through a sudden sea change in American capitalism. In the late
1970s/early 80s, whatever undercurrents of patriotism and humanitarianism that remained
within the postwar economy (and had opened the space for the middle class) evaporated, and
almost overnight we were living in a culture without any sense of balance or proportion, a
virulent and violent mindset that maxed out everything and knew not the meaning of enough.
Not only the business world but also the personal world was infected by this virus, as
ordinary people no longer dreamed of achieving a healthy and stable family life but rather
became hellbent to "succeed" and get rich. Empathy, compassion, and commitment to social
justice was no longer cool, giving way to self-interest and self-promotion as the new
"virtues." Men, of course, led the way in this devolution, but there was a time in the 90s
when almost every other woman I knew was a real estate agent. I touched upon a small
male-oriented piece of this social devolution in an essay I wrote several years ago: Would
Paladin Have Shot Bin Laden? For those who might be intrigued, here's the link:
What was needed was a Wyatt Earp, not a Paladin ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgvxu8QY01s
). His standard procedure in the old West was to use his Colt revolver to pistol-whip an
offender. Short, sharp and effective.
But then again there was no way that Bin Laden was ever going to be taken prisoner. That bit
on his resume as being a contractor for the CIA was a bit embarrassing after all.
I remember the 50's and even under the hue of bright eyes saw that people were just as
hell bent to 'get ahead' in their careers as now and that competing with 'the Joneses' in
every crude way imaginable was the rage.
Perhaps more precise to say that in the early '80s, Capitalism reached a tipping point
where gravity overcame thrust and virtues with latent vice became vices with the optics of
virtue. That and the fact that the right actors always seem available -as if out of thin air,
but in reality very much part of cause and effect – for a given state of entropy.
No doubt what was somewhat latent in postwar American capitalism became obscenely blatant
in or around the Reagan era. It was all there before, of course, in former times like the
Gilded Age. But in the midsize, now rustbelt city I grew up in and continue to live in, the
upper middle class of my childhood and youth–the doctors, lawyers, corporate exec's,
etc.–lived a few blocks away from my working class neighborhood, had nicer homes, drove
caddys instead of chevys, and so forth, but their kids went to school with us working class
kids, went to the same movies and dances, hung out in the same places, and all of us,
generally, young and old, lived in essentially the same world. For example, my uncle, a
lawyer, made maybe 3 times what my dad, a factory clerk, made. THAT was the split between the
middle and upper middle class back then, at least in a fairly typical Midwestern city. THAT
was what drastically and suddenly changed in the late 70s/early 80s and has only intensified
thereafter.
Terrific article, but with so many "missing" words (words left out)–too many to
list, gratis–you make it a serious challenge to consider sharing with literate friends
on social media. Seriously, doesn't anyone re-read their work before "posting?"
Well, at least the missing words in this piece don't make sentences unintelligible. I've
seen that happen before.
It's such a shame for authors to put so much work time and effort into their articles, but
then allow the lack of an editor or final read-through to tarnish the entire work.
One thing that strikes me – a generation ago the talking-point robots of the right
could decry "socialized medicine" and all those people supposedly dying while waiting for an
operation in foreign, "socialized medicine" places. And they could largely get away with it
because relatively few people had personal acquaintances outside their own area.
But now, anyone active in social media probably can interact freely with people all over
the world and appreciate how pathetic things really are in the US.
I read on a sports-related forum where an English guy had been watching Breaking Bad and
commented offhand that he was amazed at the cost of medical treatment for Mr. White. This
turned into a discussion between Brits and Yanks about the NHS. And person after person
chimed in "yeah, NHS is not perfect but this kind of thing could never happen here." And you
saw the Americans – "yeah, our health care system really is a disgrace."
I'm not a big fan of the social media Borg in general, but here at least seems to be a
good effect. It might over time enable more people to wake up as to how jacked up certain
things are here.
I'd like to declare us a completely divided, conquered people.
In the last few weeks I've visited with many old friends all of them suffering in silence.
Each and every one falling further behind, on the brink of disaster, if not already there. No
matter their credentials, many highly credentialed with multiple degrees and or highly
experienced in several fields. All with ridiculously high work ethics. All feel maintaining
personal integrity is costing them an ability to 'get ahead'.
Many of these friends have multiple jobs, no debt, no car payment, some have insurance
which is killing them, medical bills which bury them if they ever have so much as basic
health issues, and they are thrifty, from the clothes they wear to the amount of rent they
commit themselves. And yet 'staying afloat', is but a dream trumped by guilt and
isolationism.
I often joke with my fellow country neighbors that it costs a hundred bucks to simply
leave the house. It's not a joke anymore. At this point those still fighting for a paltry
15.00 should include a hundred dollar per day walk out your front door per diem.
A couple months back I gave my camper to an old acquaintance who had no record, found
himself homeless after being falsely accused of a crime and locked up for two months. And
another friend with full time management position, just gave up her apartment to move into a
tent in another friends back yard. Both of these people are bright, hard working, mid
forties, white, family peeps with great children. The very kind this article addresses.
The noose tightens and people are committing desperate acts. There is no solidarity. No
vision of a way out of this.
Watch a ten dollar parking ticket bring a grown man to terror in their eyes. And he
brought in a thousand bucks last week, but has been texting his landlord about past due rent
all afternoon.
I feel like I'm on the brink of a million episodes of " Falling Down ".
I don't think the 0.1% wanted to build a society like this, it is just the way the math
works. Somewhere around 1980 the integrity of the US was lost and it became possible for the
owning class to divorce themselves from their neighbors and arbitrage labor around the world.
Computers and telecommunications made it possible to manage a global supply chain and
Republicans changed the tax rules to make it easier to shut down businesses and move them
overseas.
A different way to view this: as the wealthy earn profits they can use some of their cash
to modify the rules to their benefit. Then they gain more cash which allows them to influence
voters and politicians to modify the rules even more in their favor.
If people organized they could change the rules in their favor, but that rarely happens.
We used to have unions (imperfect though they were) which lobbied for the working class.
I think the 1980s was when I found out my wealthy cousins, who owned a clothing factory in
Georgia, had moved it to–get ready for this–Borneo! And of course they are
Republicans.
The collective decisions to pull up the drawbridge, and a lot middle-class people have
supported these decisions are the major reason why there is a housing crisis and
higher-education is so expensive.
A lot of people, especially middle-class people, come out with pitchforks every time a new
housing development is proposed, screaming about how they don't want "those people" living
near them and will vehemently oppose anything that isn't single-family homes which has
resulted in the housing supply lagging behind demand, thus affordability issues.
These same people over the years have decided that tax-cuts are more important than
adequately funding higher education, so higher education has become a lot more expensive as
state support has dwindled.
As the saying goes you made you bed, now you get to sleep in it. Unfortunately so does the
younger generation who may not have anything to do with the horrible decision making of the
past.
The article stated Americans are "Petrified of being pushed aside by robots".
Maybe I associate with the wrong people, but I don't know any who fear being pushed aside
by robots.
But I do know of someone who was being laid off from a tech firm and was finding his job
moved overseas.
The deal management presented was, "you can leave now, with your severance package, or get
two more weeks pay by training your replacement who will be visiting from overseas."
He trained the new worker for the two weeks.
The American worker is being hit, not by robots, but by outsourcing to other countries and
by in-sourcing of labor from other countries.
Robots are expensive and will be avoided if a human can do the job cheaply enough.
That the article brings "fear of robots" into the discussion is a tell that the writer
does not want to mention that it is the competition from others in the world wide labor force
that depress USA wages.
In the USA, we are witnessing labor arbitrage encouraged by both parties and much of the
media as they push USA wages toward world wide levels.
But not for the elite wage earners who gain from this system.
Agreed. The kind of pink collar and barely white collar employees this piece was focused
on are not presently threatened by "robots". They are threatened by outsourcing and wage
arbitrage.
That the article brings "fear of robots" into the discussion is a tell that the writer
does not want to mention that it is the competition from others in the world wide labor force
that depress USA wages.
You may have a point there, and you are spot on that the vast bulk of job-loss is due to
job migration and import of cheaper labor. But regardless of the writer's intent or simple
laziness, don't be too fast to poo-poo the effect of Robots.
One problem is that we tend to measure job loss and gain without reference to the actual
job loosers and the fact that re-training for them may well be impossible or completely
ineffective or, at the very minimum, often extremely painful. So while automation may provide
as many new jobs as it takes away old ones, that is cold comfort indeed to the worker who
gets left behind.
Another, is that the fear of massive job loss to Robots is almost certainly warranted even
if not yet fully materialized.
When the "Steel Wave" of robot workers comes ashore, I'll be near the head of the queue to
join the "Robo Luddites." If the owners of the robot hordes won't pay a fair share of the
costs of their mechanominions worker displacement activities, then they should be made to pay
an equivalent share in heightened "Production Facility Security Costs." Ford Motors and the
River Rouge plant strike comes to mind.
See: http://98937119.weebly.com/strike-at-the-river-rouge-plant-1941.html
It'd be great to be right there with you on that fateful day, Ambrit :-) (And I've even
got my gun with the little white flag that pops out and has "Bang!" written on it, all oiled
up and ready to go). I suspect however that it will be a silent D Day that probably took
place some time ago.
Hard Briexit looks to be baked in the cake
Global Warming disaster looks to be baked in the cake
Water wars look to be baked in the cake.
Massive impoverishment in developed and so called third world nations alike and insane 'last
gasp' looting looks to be baked in the cake
[ ]
Why would all manner of robots, the ones too tiny to see along with human looking ones and
giant factories that are in reality themselves robots be the exception?
We'd be facing robots, so that flag would have to go "Bang" in binary code. (Might even
work. While they are trying to decipher the flag, we can switch their tubes of graphite
lubricant with tubes of carborundum.)
When the technologically capable humans have all died off, will the robots perish likewise
for lack of programmers?
"Robots" are software programs, do-it-yourself online appointments, voice recognition,
"press 1 now." What's the point of retraining? All you're good for is to make sure the plug
is in the wall.
The act of training the overseas replacement could become an act of sabotage. Think of the
ways that one could train the replacement to do the job incorrectly, more slowly than
necessary, or not at all.
In a lot of cases that doesn't require much 'intentional' effort. But the lure of cheap
labor seems to conquer all. I've seen software companies take loss after loss on off-shore
development team screw ups until they finally get it right. I even saw one such company go
out of business trying rather than just calling it quits and going back to what was left of
their core developers.
As I approach 40, having only realized in recent years that the constant soul-ache I've
lived with my whole life is not some inherent flaw in my being, but a symptom of a deeply ill
society, I desperately wish I could share in the glimmer of hope at the end of this post.
But I cannot. What drives me to despair is not the fragile, corrupt, and unsustainable
social/political/economic system we're inheriting; nor is it the poisoned and increasingly
harsh planet, nor the often silent epidemic of mental and emotional anguish that prevents so
many of us from becoming our best selves. I retain great faith in the resilience and
potential of the human spirit. And contrary to the stereotypes, I think my generation and
those who have come after are often more intellectually and emotionally mature than our
parents and grandparents. At the very least, we have a powerful sense of irony and highly
tuned BS detectors.
What drives me to despair is so pathetically prosaic that I want to laugh and cry all at
once as I type this. To put it as simply as I know how, a core function of all functional
human societies is apprenticeship, by which I mean the basic process whereby deep knowledge
and skills are transferred from the old to the young, where tensions between tradition and
change are contested and resolved, and where the fundamental human need to develop a sense of
oneself as a unique and valuable part of a community can flourish.
We have been commodified since before we were even born, to the point where opportunities
for what Lave and Wenger would call "legitimate peripheral participation" in the kinds of
work that yield real, humane, benefits to our communities are scant to nonexistent for most
of us. Something has gone deeply awry in this core social function at the worst possible time
in human history.
Sympathies from a fellow traveler – your experience sounds similar to mine. I'm a
little older and in my 20s I avoided getting a 'real' job for all the reasons you describe.
When I hit my 30s and saw what some of the guys who had been hanging out in the bar too long
looked like, and decided I ought to at least try it and see how it would go.
"Some quirk of my psychology means doing those things creates an irresistible urge in me
to slowly poison myself with alcohol and tobacco."
I think those things and drugs are conscience oblivators. Try gardening. Touch the earth.
Grow actual food. Not hemp. Back away from the education racket. Good luck. Quit the poison.
That was a wonderful post, very moving, thank you. These kind of testimonies are very
important because they show the real human cost of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is truly a
death cult. Please find an alternative to alcohol. Music, art, nature, etc.
Thank you for sharing your compelling story. As someone who could be your mother, it is
painful to me not only that this is your experience, but that you are so acutely aware of it.
No blinders. Hence, I guess, the need for alcohol.
You write beautifully. Hope is hard to come by sometimes.
At least you are self aware. Most people are not.
As for the Ship of Status, let it sink. Find a lifeboat where you feel comfortable and batten
down for the Roaring (20)40s yet to come. Once you find something to work for, the bad habits
will lose much of their hold on you. As long as you don't slide into alcoholism, you have a
chance.
Life was kinder just 40 years ago, not perfect but way more mellow than it is today. Kids
were listening to Peter Frampton and Stevie Wonder, not punk, grunge, rap and industrial
music. What changed? Neoliberalism, the economic policy that is private sector "free market"
driven, giving the owners of capital free, unfettered reign. Created by libertarians like Fredrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, they sold it to the nation but failed to mention that
little peccadillo about how privatization of government would usher in economic fascism.
"An extreme form of laissez-faire individualism that developed in the writings of
Hayek, Friedman and Nozick they are also referred to as libertarians. They draw on the
natural rights tradition of John Locke and champion's full autonomy and freedom of the
individual."
What they meant was ECONOMIC freedom. They despise social freedom (democracy) because
civil, labor, health, food safety, etc., rights and environmental protections put limits on
their profits.
The "maximizing shareholder value" myth turns people into psychopaths
. The entire neoliberal economic policy of the past 40 years is based on the false assumption
that self-interest is the driving evolution of humanity. We're not all psychopaths, turns
out. We're social beings that have mainly used cooperation to get us through these thousands
of years of existence.
There's nothing wrong with wanting government to protect the public sector from predatory
capitalists. Otherwise, society's value system turns upside down sick people are more valued
than healthy violent are more valued to fill up the prison factories war becomes a permanent
business a filthy, toxic planet is good for the oil industry a corporate governance with no
respect for rights or environmental protections is the best capitalism can offer?
Thanks, but no thanks.
The easily manipulated right are getting the full assault. "Run for your lives! The
democratic socialists want to use the government bank for everyone, not just the 1%!!
They understand how the
economy really works and see through our lies!! Before you know it, everyone will be
enjoying a better quality of life! AAAAGHHH!!"
"If the IMF is to shake its image as an inward-looking, out-of-touch boys club, it
needs to start taking the issue seriously. The effect of the male dominance in macroeconomics
can be seen in the policy direction of the organisation: female economists are more likely to
be in favour of Government-backed redistribution measures than their male
counterparts.
Of course, the parochial way in which economics is perceived by the IMF, as nothing
more than the application of mathematical models, is nothing new. In fact, this is how
mainstream economics frequently is taught in universities all over the world. Is it any
wonder that the IMF has turned out as it is?"
Michael Hudson, as usual, was right:
"Economics students are forced to spend so much time with this complex calculus so
that they can go to work on Wall St. that there's no room in the course curriculum for the
history of economic thought.
So all they know about Adam Smith is what they hear on CNN news or other mass media
that are a travesty of what these people really said and if you don't read the history of
economic thought, you'd think there's only one way of looking at the world and that's the way
the mass media promote things and it's a propagandistic, Orwellian way.
The whole economic vocabulary is to cover up what's really happening and to make
people think that the economy is getting richer while the reality is they're getting poorer
and only the top is getting richer and they can only get rich as long as the middle class and
the working class don't realize the scam that's being pulled off on them."
Unfettered Fire and funemployed: deeply appreciate your lengthy and heartfelt posts. It's
a terribly small thing, but I have a suggestion to make that always helps me to feel a bit
better about things or should I say to feel a bit better about the possibility of things. If
you're game, and haven't already done so, search for the following free online book:
"Equality" by Edward Bellamy. Then do no more than read the introduction and first chapter
(and slightly into the second) to absorb by far the finest Socratic dialogue ever written
about capitalism, socialism, and the only nonviolent way to move from the former to the
latter–a way wide open to us, theoretically, right now. I know that's a hell of a
qualifier.
Why do modern intellectuals insist on inventing euphemisms for already known definitions?
The middle precariat is merely another term for the petty bourgeoisie. While they may have
possessed economic benefits like pensions and owned minuscule amounts of financial assets
they were never the dominant ruling class. Their socioeconomic status was always closer in
their livelihoods to the working class. After the working class was effectively being
dismantled starting in the 1970s, it has become the petty bourgeoisie's turn to be
systematically impoverished.
This is the primary economic development of our era of late capitalism. The question is,
what does it mean to be American if this country is no longer a land of opportunity?
Because the 'known definitions' do not apply anymore.
The middle has more in common with those below than those above. And here is the scary
reason: everyone is to be preyed upon by the wealth extractors who dominate our
politics/economy -- everyone. There is no social or educational allegieance, there is only a
resource to be ruthlessly plundered, people and their ability to earn and secure.
The so-called precariat lacks any sense of class consciousness and as a consequence are
incapable of any kind of solidarity. Nor do they perceive any predatory behavior in the
economic system. If the article is to be believed they blame themselves for their plight.
These traits which include the admiration and imitation of the rich are the hallmarks of the
petty bourgeoisie.
This disagreement over semantics is an example of the shallowness and superficiality of
new ideas. Marx already predicted that they'd be unceremoniously thrown into the underclass
in later stages of economic development at any rate.
The BigMedia & BigPols ignore the Type 1 Overqualified Underemployed cohort. Perhaps
hopefully someone like the new Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will discuss it, her recently
being of this cohort as an economist by degree working as a bartender. Instead we have
examples of BigMedia/BigPol crying about "STEM worker shortage" where there already are
countless underemployed STEM workers working Uber-ish type McJobs.
Afaict the only occupations (mostly) immune to Type 1 Overqualified Underemployment risk
here in Murica are medical pros: physicians/dentists/pharmacists & possibly nurses.
Otherwise there are stories of PhD Uber drivers, MBA strippers, & lawyers working Apple
store retail, especially in the first few years post 2008-GFC but still present now. In other
words, the US labor market "new economy" is resembling "old economy" of Latin America or
Russia (proverbial physicist selling trinkets on the Trans-Siberia railway).
"I often joke with my fellow country neighbors that it costs a hundred bucks to simply
leave the house. It's not a joke anymore. At this point those still fighting for a paltry
15.00 should include a hundred dollar per day walk out your front door per diem."
This is a stark and startling reality. This reality is outside the framework of
understanding of economic struggle in America that is allowed by the corporate neoliberal
culture/media.
As the Precariat grows, having watched the .1% lie, cheat and steal – from them, they
are more likely to also lie, cheat and steal in mortgage, employment and student loan
applications and most importantly and sadly, in their dealings with each other.
Everybody is turning into a hustler.
As to dealings with institutions, this comment is apt.
I think this came from NC comments a couple of weeks ago. Apologies for not being able to
attribute it to its author:
"Why should the worker be subservient to the employer? Citizens owe NO LOYALTY, moral or
legal, to a someone else's money making enterprise. And that enterprise is strictly a product
of signed commercial legal documents. Commercial enterprise has no natural existence. It is a
man-made creation, and is a "privilege", not a "right"; just as a drivers license is a
privilege and not an absolute right."
Economics was always far too dangerous to be allowed to reveal the truth about the
economy. The Classical economist, Adam Smith, observed the world of small state, unregulated
capitalism around him.
"The labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the
maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury
by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the
industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the
use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no
landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers."
How does this tie in with the trickledown view we have today?
Somehow everything has been turned upside down.
The workers that did the work to produce the surplus lived a bare subsistence
existence. Those with land and money used it to live a life of luxury and leisure.
The bankers (usurers) created money out of nothing and charged interest on it. The bankers
got rich, and everyone else got into debt and over time lost what they had through defaults
on loans, and repossession of assets.
Capitalism had two sides, the productive side where people earned their income and the
parasitic side where the rentiers lived off unearned income. The Classical Economists had
shown that most at the top of society were just parasites feeding off the productive activity
of everyone else.
Economics was always far too dangerous to be allowed to reveal the truth about the
economy.
How can we protect those powerful vested interests at the top of society?
The early neoclassical economists hid the problems of rentier activity in the economy by
removing the difference between "earned" and "unearned" income and they conflated "land" with
"capital". They took the focus off the cost of living that had been so important to the
Classical Economists to hide the effects of rentier activity in the economy.
The landowners, landlords and usurers were now just productive members of society
again. It they left banks and debt out of economics no one would know the bankers created the
money supply out of nothing. Otherwise, everyone would see how dangerous it was to let
bankers do what they wanted if they knew the bankers created the money supply through their
loans.
The powerful vested interests held sway and economics was corrupted. Now we know what's wrong with neoclassical economics we can put the cost of living back
in.
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Employees want more disposable income (discretionary spending).
Employers want to pay lower wages for higher profits
The cost of living = housing costs + healthcare costs + student loan costs + food
+ other costs of living
The neoliberals obsessed about reducing taxes, but let the cost of living soar. The economists also ignore the debt that is papering over the cracks and maintaining
demand in the economy. This can never work in the longer term as you max. out on debt.
> These young people do not think of things like debt-free college or paid family leave
as radical: they see it done elsewhere in the world and don't accept that it can't be done in
America.
An unexpected consequence of globalization is that a lot of people see how thing are done,
elsewhere.
Part of me doesn't feel sorry at all for the plight of middle-class Americans. When times
were good they were happy to throw poor and working-class people under the bus. I remember
when the common answer to complaints about factory closings was "you should have gotten an
education, dummy." Now that the white-collar middle class can see that they are next on the
chopping block they are finding their populist soul.
At the end of the day we need to have solidarity between workers but this is a good
example of why you should never think that you are untouchable and why punching down is never
a good political strategy. There will always be somebody more powerful than you and after
they are done destroying the people at the bottom you will probably be next.
"... Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched, like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned. ..."
"... Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing nothing but a trench coat. ..."
"... The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges recently noted , "The most basic constitutional rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security." ..."
"... This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious). ..."
"... According to Deloitte's Shift Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years. ..."
"... Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms. ..."
Our society should've collapsed by now. You know that, right?
No society should function with this level of inequality (with the possible exception of one of those prison planets in a "Star
Wars" movie). Sixty-three percent of Americans
can't afford a $500 emergency
. Yet Amazon head Jeff Bezos is now
worth a record $141 billion . He could literally end world hunger for multiple years and still have more money left over than
he could ever spend on himself.
Worldwide,
one in
10 people only make $2 a day. Do you know how long it would take one of those people to make the same amount as Jeff Bezos has?
193 million years . (If they only buy single-ply toilet paper.) Put simply, you cannot comprehend the level of inequality in our
current world or even just our nation.
So shouldn't there be riots in the streets every day? Shouldn't it all be collapsing? Look outside. The streets aren't on fire.
No one is running naked and screaming (usually). Does it look like everyone's going to work at gunpoint? No. We're all choosing to
continue on like this.
Why?
Well, it comes down to the myths we've been sold. Myths that are ingrained in our social programming from birth, deeply entrenched,
like an impacted wisdom tooth. These myths are accepted and basically never questioned.
I'm going to cover eight of them. There are more than eight. There are probably hundreds. But I'm going to cover eight because
(A) no one reads a column titled "Hundreds of Myths of American Society," (B) these are the most important ones and (C) we all have
other shit to do.
Myth No. 8 -- We have a democracy.
If you think we still have a democracy or a democratic republic, ask yourself this: When was the last time Congress did something
that the people of America supported that did not align with corporate interests? You probably can't do it. It's like trying to think
of something that rhymes with "orange." You feel like an answer exists but then slowly realize it doesn't. Even the Carter Center
and former President Jimmy Carter believe that America has been
transformed into
an oligarchy : A small, corrupt elite control the country with almost no input from the people. The rulers need the myth that
we're a democracy to give us the illusion of control.
Myth No. 7 -- We have an accountable and legitimate voting system.
Gerrymandering, voter purging, data mining, broken exit polling, push polling, superdelegates, electoral votes, black-box machines,
voter ID suppression, provisional ballots, super PACs, dark money, third parties banished from the debates and two corporate parties
that stand for the same goddamn pile of fetid crap!
What part of this sounds like a legitimate election system?
No, we have what a large Harvard study called the
worst election system in the Western world . Have you ever seen where a parent has a toddler in a car seat, and the toddler has
a tiny, brightly colored toy steering wheel so he can feel like he's driving the car? That's what our election system is -- a toy
steering wheel. Not connected to anything. We all sit here like infants, excitedly shouting, "I'm steeeeering !"
And I know it's counterintuitive, but that's why you have to vote. We have to vote in such numbers that we beat out what's stolen
through our ridiculous rigged system.
Myth No. 6 -- We have an independent media that keeps the rulers accountable.
Our media outlets are funded by weapons contractors, big pharma, big banks, big oil and big, fat hard-on pills. (Sorry to go hard
on hard-on pills, but we can't get anything resembling hard news because it's funded by dicks.) The corporate media's jobs are to
rally for war, cheer for Wall Street and froth at the mouth for consumerism. It's their mission to actually fortify belief in the
myths I'm telling you about right now. Anybody who steps outside that paradigm is treated like they're standing on a playground wearing
nothing but a trench coat.
Myth No. 5 -- We have an independent judiciary.
The criminal justice system has become a weapon wielded by the corporate state. This is how bankers can foreclose on millions
of homes illegally and see no jail time, but activists often serve jail time for nonviolent civil disobedience. Chris Hedges
recently noted , "The most basic constitutional
rights have been erased for many. Our judicial system, as Ralph Nader has pointed out, has legalized secret law, secret courts, secret
evidence, secret budgets and secret prisons in the name of national security."
If you're not part of the monied class, you're pressured into releasing what few rights you have left. According to
The New
York Times , "97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains, with defendants pleading guilty
in exchange for a lesser sentence."
That's the name of the game. Pressure people of color and poor people to just take the plea deal because they don't have a million
dollars to spend on a lawyer. (At least not one who doesn't advertise on beer coasters.)
Myth No. 4 -- The police are here to protect you. They're your friends .
That's funny. I don't recall my friend pressuring me into sex to get out of a speeding ticket. (Which is essentially still
legal in 32
states .)
The police in our country are primarily designed to do two things: protect the property of the rich and perpetrate the completely
immoral war on drugs -- which by definition is a war on our own people .
We lock up more people than
any other country on earth
. Meaning the land of the free is the largest prison state in the world. So all these droopy-faced politicians and rabid-talking
heads telling you how awful China is on human rights or Iran or North Korea -- none of them match the numbers of people locked up
right here under Lady Liberty's skirt.
Myth No. 3 -- Buying will make you happy.
This myth (Buying will make you happy) is put forward mainly by the floods of advertising we take in but also by our social engineering. Most of us feel a
tenacious emptiness, an alienation deep down behind our surface emotions (for a while I thought it was gas). That uneasiness is because
most of us are flushing away our lives at jobs we hate before going home to seclusion boxes called houses or apartments. We then
flip on the TV to watch reality shows about people who have it worse than we do (which we all find hilarious).
If we're lucky, we'll make enough money during the week to afford enough beer on the weekend to help it all make sense. (I find
it takes at least four beers for everything to add up.) But that doesn't truly bring us fulfillment. So what now? Well, the ads say
buying will do it. Try to smother the depression and desperation under a blanket of flat-screen TVs, purses and Jet Skis. Now does
your life have meaning? No? Well, maybe you have to drive that Jet Ski a little faster! Crank it up until your bathing suit flies
off and you'll feel alive !
The dark truth is that we have to believe the myth that consuming is the answer or else we won't keep running around the wheel.
And if we aren't running around the wheel, then we start thinking, start asking questions. Those questions are not good for the ruling
elite, who enjoy a society based on the daily exploitation of 99 percent of us.
Myth No. 2 -- If you work hard, things will get better.
According to Deloitte's Shift
Index survey : "80% of people are dissatisfied with their jobs" and "[t]he average person spends 90,000 hours at work over their
lifetime." That's about one-seventh of your life -- and most of it is during your most productive years.
Ask yourself what we're working for. To make money? For what? Almost none of us are doing jobs for survival anymore. Once upon
a time, jobs boiled down to:
I plant the food -- >I eat the food -- >If I don't plant food = I die.
But nowadays, if you work at a café -- will someone die if they don't get their super-caf-mocha-frap-almond-piss-latte? I kinda
doubt they'll keel over from a blueberry scone deficiency.
If you work at Macy's, will customers perish if they don't get those boxer briefs with the sweat-absorbent-ass fabric? I doubt
it. And if they do die from that, then their problems were far greater than you could've known. So that means we're all working to
make other people rich because we have a society in which we have to work. Technological advancements can do most everything that
truly must get done.
So if we wanted to, we could get rid of most work and have tens of thousands of more hours to enjoy our lives. But we're not doing
that at all. And no one's allowed to ask these questions -- not on your mainstream airwaves at least. Even a half-step like universal
basic income is barely discussed because it doesn't compute with our cultural programming.
Scientists say it's quite possible artificial intelligence will take away
all human jobs in 120 years . I think they know that will
happen because bots will take the jobs and then realize that 80 percent of them don't need to be done! The bots will take over and
then say, "Stop it. Stop spending a seventh of your life folding shirts at Banana Republic."
One day, we will build monuments to the bot that told us to enjoy our lives and leave the shirts wrinkly.
And this leads me to the largest myth of our American society.
Myth No. 1 -- You are free.
... ... ...
Try sleeping in your car for more than a few hours without being harassed by police.
Try maintaining your privacy for a week without a single email, web search or location data set collected by the NSA and the telecoms.
Try signing up for the military because you need college money and then one day just walking off the base, going, "Yeah, I was
bored. Thought I would just not do this anymore."
Try explaining to Kentucky Fried Chicken that while you don't have the green pieces of paper they want in exchange for the mashed
potatoes, you do have some pictures you've drawn on a napkin to give them instead.
Try using the restroom at Starbucks without buying something while black.
We are less free than a dog on a leash. We live in one of the hardest-working, most unequal societies on the planet with more
billionaires than ever .
Meanwhile,
Americans
supply 94 percent of the paid blood used worldwide. And it's almost exclusively coming from very poor people. This abusive vampire
system is literally sucking the blood from the poor. Does that sound like a free decision they made? Or does that sound like something
people do after immense economic force crushes down around them? (One could argue that sperm donation takes a little less convincing.)
Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't need guns and tear
gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for us all to buy into,
hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults.
815M people chronically malnourished according to the UN. Bezos is worth $141B.
$141B / 815M people = $173 per person. That would definitely not feed them for "multiple years". And that's only if Bezos could
fully liquidate the stock without it dropping a penny.
" Point is, in order to enforce this illogical, immoral system, the corrupt rulers -- most of the time -- don't
need guns and tear gas to keep the exploitation mechanisms humming along. All they need are some good, solid bullshit myths for
us all to buy into, hook, line and sinker. Some fairy tales for adults. "
Seems like there's tear gas in the air and guns are going to be used soon. The myths are dying on the tongues of the liars.
Molon Labe!....and I'm usually a pacifist.
"American Society Would Collapse If It Weren't For Invasions Of Foreign Countries, Murdering Their People, Stealing Their Oil
Then Blaming Them For Making The US Do It."
Well, in a world driven by oil, it is entirely bogus to suggest that citizens have to work their asses off. That was the whole
point of the bill of goods that was sold to us in the late 70's and early 80'. More leisure time, more time for your family and
personal interests.
Except! It never happened. All they fucking did was reduce real wages and force everyone from the upper middle class down,
into a shit hole.
But, they will pay for their folly. Guaran-fucking-teed.
As one who has hoed many rows of cotton in 115F temperatures as well as picking cotton during my childhood and early adolescence
during weekends and school holidays, I concur. It was a very powerful inducement to get a good education back when schools actually
taught things and did not tolerate backtalk or guff from students instead of babysitting them. It worked, and I ended up writing
computer software for spacecraft, which was much fun than working in the fields.
Yeah, it's amazing to watch. With Trump in 2016 they went with "Racist, Sexist, Homophobe,
insane person", etc. and now they're going with "Russia" and censorship.
Labor was such a longtime stronghold for the Democrats and they've lost it. Labor doesn't
give a shit about Russia. Everyone though, is sick of the corruption. #Walkaway. The whole
"Russia" hoax is designed to blow a huge smoke screen into the felony crimes committed
principally by Clinton allies and the deep state.
The immolation of both the legacy media and the democratic party is occurring
simultaneously. We have seen Peak Facebook.
We have some real giants out there like Stefan Molyneux. A whole galaxy of them helped
bring Trump into the White House and as legacy platforms censor, new ones arise.
I am afraid that historically we better be prepared for what the left does when it doesn't
get its way and that is violence. Look at how the media is openly inciting violence. They've
made heros out of thugs who rob, out of violent shit-and-piss hurling hooligans, and
democratic local bosses have stood down as law-abiding citizens assembled for peaceful
speech.
So the wholesale insanity is going to be more than screaming at the sky.
Not only "An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our
ethics and our personalities", it crushes the will to resist presenting psychopathic dictate in
forms that make it difficult. Such as performance reviews waterboarding or putting individual in
the way too complex and self-contradictory Web of regulations.
Notable quotes:
"... An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities. ..."
"... Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace. This is a typical symptom of the impotent venting their frustration on the weak – in psychology it's known as displaced aggression. There is a buried sense of fear, ranging from performance anxiety to a broader social fear of the threatening other. ..."
"... Constant evaluations at work cause a decline in autonomy and a growing dependence on external, often shifting, norms. This results in what the sociologist Richard Sennett has aptly described as the "infantilisation of the workers". Adults display childish outbursts of temper and are jealous about trivialities ("She got a new office chair and I didn't"), tell white lies, resort to deceit, delight in the downfall of others and cherish petty feelings of revenge. This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and that fails to treat employees as adults. ..."
"... Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough, all the while reinforcing privilege and putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and exhausted citizens. An increasing number of people fail, feeling humiliated, guilty and ashamed. We are forever told that we are freer to choose the course of our lives than ever before, but the freedom to choose outside the success narrative is limited. Furthermore, those who fail are deemed to be losers or scroungers, taking advantage of our social security system. ..."
"... The current economic system is bringing out the worst in us. ..."
An economic system that rewards psychopathic personality traits has changed our ethics
and our personalities.
Thirty years of neoliberalism, free-market forces and
privatisation have taken their toll, as relentless pressure to achieve has become normative. If
you're reading this sceptically, I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism
favours certain personality traits and penalises others.
There are certain ideal characteristics needed to make a career today. The first is
articulateness, the aim being to win over as many people as possible. Contact can be
superficial, but since this applies to most human interaction nowadays, this won't really be
noticed.
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know
a lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a
major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that they
were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and feel
little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
On top of all this, you are flexible and impulsive, always on the lookout for new stimuli
and challenges. In practice, this leads to risky behaviour, but never mind, it won't be you who
has to pick up the pieces. The source of inspiration for this list? The psychopathy checklist
by Robert Hare , the best-known specialist
on psychopathy today.
This description is, of course, a caricature taken to extremes. Nevertheless, the financial
crisis illustrated at a macro-social level (for example, in the conflicts between eurozone
countries) what a neoliberal meritocracy does to people. Solidarity becomes an expensive luxury
and makes way for temporary alliances, the main preoccupation always being to extract more
profit from the situation than your competition. Social ties with colleagues weaken, as does
emotional commitment to the enterprise or organisation.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.
This is a typical symptom of the impotent venting their frustration on the weak – in
psychology it's known as displaced aggression. There is a buried sense of fear, ranging from
performance anxiety to a broader social fear of the threatening other.
Constant evaluations at work cause a decline in autonomy and a growing dependence on
external, often shifting, norms. This results in what the sociologist Richard Sennett has
aptly described as the "infantilisation of the workers". Adults display childish outbursts of
temper and are jealous about trivialities ("She got a new office chair and I didn't"), tell
white lies, resort to deceit, delight in the downfall of others and cherish petty feelings of
revenge. This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently
and that fails to treat employees as adults.
More important, though, is the serious damage to people's self-respect. Self-respect largely
depends on the recognition that we receive from the other, as thinkers from Hegel to Lacan have shown. Sennett comes
to a similar conclusion when he sees the main question for employees these days as being "Who
needs me?" For a growing group of people, the answer is: no one.
Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough,
all the while reinforcing privilege and putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and
exhausted citizens. An increasing number of people fail, feeling humiliated, guilty and
ashamed. We are forever told that we are freer to choose the course of our lives than ever
before, but the freedom to choose outside the success narrative is limited. Furthermore, those
who fail are deemed to be losers or scroungers, taking advantage of our social security
system.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and
talents, meaning responsibility lies entirely with the individual and authorities should give
people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal. For those who believe in the fairytale
of unrestricted choice, self-government and self-management are the pre-eminent political
messages, especially if they appear to promise freedom. Along with the idea of the perfectible
individual, the freedom we perceive ourselves as having in the west is the greatest untruth of
this day and age.
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox
of our era as: "Never have we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed
freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new
laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can do all these
things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by
indifference. Yet, on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a
bureaucracy that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything,
from the salt content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that
is, "make" something of ourselves. You don't need to look far for examples. A highly skilled
individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good
job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy –
unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become a primary school
teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's degree in
economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture. Yet
our norms and values make up an integral and essential part of our identity. So they cannot be
lost, only changed. And that is precisely what has happened: a changed economy reflects changed
ethics and brings about changed identity. The current economic system is bringing out the
worst in us.
Panic attacks, anxiety attacks, nervous breakdowns, depression, suicidal thoughts alienation,
cancers, withdrawal are all symptoms of the de-humanizing aspects of a market-driven life. In
its worst forms it manifests periodically in mass shootings at strangers. So what do people
do to cope? Drugs, pain killers, shrinks, alcohol, potato chips and soda. They then develop
obesity, diabetes and heart diseases and cancers. How to save a human species terminally
intoxicated with technology and enslaved by the market while the inner spirit is running
empty may not be possible given the advanced nature of the disease.
...what?
You fail to really acknowledge that time and again we've failed to exercise constrain within
the capitalist models. The the meritorious are often inadequately rewarded - when any person
in work cannot afford to home and feed themselves and their family then a reasonable balance
has not been struck - in that sense at no time in history has capitalism functioned
adequately.
To suggest that socialism is anti-human is to ignore how and why as a species we formed
societies at all, we come together precisely because there is a mutual benefit in so doing;
to help another is to help oneself - the model itself fails to operate in practice for the
same reason that capitalism does - the greed of the power holder.
You reserve your sharpest barbs for socialism, but at least within the socialist agenda
there is a commitment to the protection of the citizen, whoever they are, even the
'unmerited' as you describe them - a capitalist's paraphrase for 'those that create no
value'.
The socialist at least recognises that whilst the parent may be 'unmerited' their
dependants should be entitled to receive equality of opportunity and protection from the
'law-of-the-jungle' i.e., the greed of others.
The ability to generate wealth, simply by already having wealth and therefore being able
to thrive off the labour of others carries little merit as far as I can tell and does indeed
create the soul-crushing command-and-control empires of the capitalism that millions around
the world experience daily.
Neoliberalism is indeed a huge self-serving con and ironically the Thatcher/Regan doctrine
which set out to break the status quo and free the economy from the old elitist guard has had
exactly the opposite effect.
Capitalism cannot differentiate between honest competition and cheating. Since humans will
cheat to win, capitalism has become survival of the worst not the best.
The bottom line is the basic human condition prizes food, shelter, sex, and then goes
directly to greed in most modern societies. It was not always that way, and is not that way
in ever fewer societies. As it is, greed makes the world go around.
In capitalistic societies greed has been fed by business and commerce; in communist
societies it has been "some pigs are more equal then others"; and in dictatorships or true
monarchies (or the Australian Liberal Party) there is the born to rule mentality where there
are rulers and serfs.
Nobody ever seems to address the paradox of the notion of an absolute free market: that
within a free market, those who can have the freedom to exploit do exploit, thereby thus
eliminating the freedom of the exploited, which thence paradoxically negates the absoluteness
of the free market. No absolute freedom truly exist in a free market.
As such, the free market is pipe dream - a con - to eliminate regulations and create
economic freedoms only where they benefit the elite. The free market does not exist, is
impossible, and therefore should cease to be held as the harbinger of a progressive socio
economic reality.
If we are to accept the Christian assumption that we, humans, are all self-serving and
acquisitive, then we must, therefore, negate the possibility of an absolutely "free" market,
since exploitation is a naturally occurring byproduct of weak-strong interactions.
Exploitation negates freedom, and therefore, it must be our reality, as it is in all peoples'
best interests, to accept directly democratic regulations as the keystone to any market.
It sounds very like the Marxist critique of capital. And similarly, points to real problems,
but doesn't seek evidence for why such a sick situation not only persists, but is so popular
- except by denigrating 'the masses'.
Surely what is particular about our time, about industrialisation generally, is the
fragmenting of long term social structures, and orientation around the individual alone. It
seems to me the problem of our times is redeveloping social structures which balance the
individual and the socials selves, as all not merely stable but thriving happy creative
societies, have always done.
Their propaganda is the same- an obsessive hatred of the state in any form, a semi-religious
belief in the power of the individual operating in the free-market to solve humanity's ills.
Granted, they aren't social libertarians, but then, in the US, libertarians don't seem to
be either.
Pretty typical that the assumption is the Marx "nailed it" and any dissenters are
just "scared".
I'm scared by it too, as I said, it's a sensible fear of change. The question remains. What
if Marx's analysis, just the analysis, is broadly correct? What if markets really are the
road to ruination of our planet, morality and collective welfare in roughly the way that he
explained?
It's not a trivial question, and clearly the current economic orthodoxy has failed to
explain some recent little problems we've been having, while Marx explains how these problems
are structurally embedded and only to be expected. It is intellectual cowardice to
compulsively avoid this, in my view. Better minds than ours have struggled with it.
So beware of the fallacious argument from authority - 'You are stupid while I am
axiomatically very clever, because I say so, hence I must be correct and you must shut it.'
It goes nowhere useful, though we are all prone to employing it.
But it is not 'sixth form' thinking, surely, to consider these problems as being worth
thinking about in a modern context. It is a plain fact that Stalinism didn't work as planned.
We know it, but it doesn't make the problems it was intended to solve disappear to say
so.
If you believe human nature can be changed by enforcing your interpretation of Marx's
road to human freedom (a quasi-religious goal) you condemn millions to starvation,
slaughter, gulags, misery etc.
Please read what I actually wrote about that. I'm not remotely quasi-religious, nor do I seek
to enforce anything. My intention is only to expose a particularly damaging mythology. The
extent of my crimes is persuasion as a prelude to consensual change before necessity really
bites us all.
Markets conjure up the exact forms of misery you describe. Totalitarians of the right are
highly undesirable too. I am against totalitarians, as are you, but an admirer of Marx's
work. Do I fit into your simplistic categories? Does anyone? The freedoms we are permitted
serve the market before they serve people. Markets are a social construct, as is capital,
that we can choose to modify or squash. A child starving in a slum for lack of
competitiveness, for its inability to serve the interests of capital, is less abstract
perhaps.
The thing about selfishness and a brutal form of dog eat dog capitalism.
You see, it is a truth axiomatic that we human beings, as all living beings, are
fundamentally selfish. We have to be in order to survive, and excel, and advance and
perpetuate.
It is not theory but hard biology. You breathe for yourself, eat for yourself, love for
yourself, have a family for yourself and so on. People are most affected and hurt if
something happens to something or someone who means something to them personally. This is why
concepts such as religion and nationality have worked so well, and will continue to even if
they evolve in different ways, for they tap into a person's conception of theirself. Of their
identity, of their self-definition. People tend to feel worse if something bad happens to
someone they know than to a stranger; people tend to feel less bad when something happens to
a cockroach than to a dog, simply because we relate better to dogs than to insects...So even
our compassion is selfish after a fashion.
Capitalism and Socialism are two ends of the the same human spectrum of innate and
hardwired selfishness. One stresses on the individual and the other on the larger group. It's
always going to be hard to find the right balance because when you vest excessive power in
any selfish ideology, it will begin to eat into the other type of selfishness..
The world revolves around competing selfishnesses...
The global economy is based upon wasting lives and material resources.
Designer landfill is no longer an option and neo-liberalism, which places importance of
the invention called money over that of people (which is a dehumanising process), was never
an option.
It is time for the neo-liberal fake politicians (that is 99.99% of them) to take up
politics.
It really is, as ever since it is only another word for change, time for revolution.
By extension, moving away from a system the shuns those who 'fail' people would be
emotionally better off, and with the removal of the constant assessment and individualistic
competition, people may feel better able to relate to one another. This would imply that
healthy communities would be more likely to flourish, as people would be less likely to
ignore those on lower income or of 'lower status'.
Move to what system? What system would achieve this?
Whether you agree or not, it is pretty clear what was being said.
Of course it's clear. George and his followers dislike market based systems. It couldn't
be clearer. Even when the subject has little to do with the market, George and his followers
always blame it for everything that is wrong with this world. That's pretty much the whole
point of this article.
What's never clear is what alternative George and his followers propose that wouldn't
result in all of the same flaws that accompany market driven systems. How can they be so sure
some of those problems won't be worse? They always seem a bit sketchy, which is remarkable
given the furor with which they relentlessly critique the market. We are told of alternatives
concepts painted in the broadest of brushes, rich with abstract intangible idealism, but
lacking in any pragmatism. We are invited to consider the whole exercise simply as
academically self-indulgent navel gazing by the priviledged overeducated minority that
comprise much of the Guardian's readership. It's quite disappointing. This article correctly
details much of the discontent in the world. But this isn't a revelation. Where are the
concrete ideas that can actualy be implemented now? frontalcortexes at least makes a stab at something a bit more practicle than a 17
paragraph esoteric essay citing ancient Greek.
One of the worst thing is that the winners in the market race are showered with things which
are fundamentally valueless and far in excess of what they could consume if they weren't,
while bare necessities are withheld from the losers.
"... The workplace has been overwhelmed by a mad, Kafkaesque infrastructure of assessments, monitoring, measuring, surveillance
and audits, centrally directed and rigidly planned, whose purpose is to reward the winners and punish the losers ..."
"... The same forces afflict those who can't find work. They must now contend, alongside the other humiliations of unemployment,
with a whole new level of snooping and monitoring. All this, Verhaeghe points out, is fundamental to the neoliberal model, which everywhere
insists on comparison, evaluation and quantification. We find ourselves technically free but powerless. Whether in work or out of work,
we must live by the same rules or perish. All the major political parties promote them, so we have no political power either. In the
name of autonomy and freedom we have ended up controlled by a grinding, faceless bureaucracy. ..."
I was prompted to write it by a remarkable book, just published in English, by a Belgian professor of psychoanalysis, Paul Verhaeghe.
What About Me? The Struggle for Identity in a Market-Based
Society is one of those books that, by making connections between apparently distinct phenomena, permits sudden new insights
into what is happening to us and why.
We are social animals, Verhaeghe argues, and our identities are shaped by the norms and values we absorb from other people. Every
society defines and shapes its own normality – and its own abnormality – according to dominant narratives, and seeks either to make
people comply or to exclude them if they don't.
Today the dominant narrative is that of market fundamentalism, widely known in Europe as neoliberalism. The story it tells is
that the market can resolve almost all social, economic and political problems. The less the state regulates and taxes us, the better
off we will be. Public services should be privatised, public spending should be cut, and business should be freed from social control.
In countries such as the UK and the US, this story has shaped our norms and values for around 35 years: since Thatcher and Reagan
came to power. It is rapidly colonising the rest of the world.
Verhaeghe points out that neoliberalism draws on the ancient Greek idea that our ethics are innate (and governed by a state of
nature it calls the market) and on the Christian idea that humankind is inherently selfish and acquisitive. Rather than seeking to
suppress these characteristics, neoliberalism celebrates them: it claims that unrestricted competition, driven by self-interest,
leads to innovation and economic growth, enhancing the welfare of all.
At the heart of this story is the notion of merit. Untrammelled competition rewards people who have talent, work hard, and innovate.
It breaks down hierarchies and creates a world of opportunity and mobility.
The reality is rather different. Even at the beginning of the process, when markets are first deregulated, we do not start with
equal opportunities. Some people are a long way down the track before the starting gun is fired. This is how the Russian oligarchs
managed to acquire such wealth when the Soviet Union broke up. They weren't, on the whole, the most talented, hardworking or innovative
people, but those with the fewest scruples, the most thugs, and the best contacts – often in the KGB.
Even when outcomes are based on talent and hard work, they don't stay that way for long. Once the first generation of liberated
entrepreneurs has made its money, the initial meritocracy is replaced by a new elite, which insulates its children from competition
by inheritance and the best education money can buy. Where market fundamentalism has been most fiercely applied – in countries like
the US and UK – social
mobility has greatly declined .
If neoliberalism was anything other than a self-serving con, whose gurus and
thinktanks were financed
from the beginning by some of the world's richest people (the US multimillionaires Coors, Olin, Scaife, Pew and others), its
apostles would have demanded, as a precondition for a society based on merit, that no one should start life with the unfair advantage
of inherited wealth or economically determined education. But they never believed in their own doctrine. Enterprise, as a result,
quickly gave way to rent.
All this is ignored, and success or failure in the market economy are ascribed solely to the efforts of the individual. The rich
are the new righteous; the poor are the new deviants, who have failed both economically and morally and are now classified as social
parasites.
The market was meant to emancipate us, offering autonomy and freedom. Instead it has delivered atomisation and loneliness.
The workplace has been overwhelmed by a mad, Kafkaesque infrastructure of assessments, monitoring, measuring, surveillance
and audits, centrally directed and rigidly planned, whose purpose is to reward the winners and punish the losers . It destroys
autonomy, enterprise, innovation and loyalty, and breeds frustration, envy and fear. Through a magnificent paradox, it has led to
the revival of a grand old Soviet tradition known in Russian as tufta . It means falsification of statistics to meet the
diktats of unaccountable power.
The same forces afflict those who can't find work. They must now contend, alongside the other humiliations of unemployment,
with a whole new level of snooping and monitoring. All this, Verhaeghe points out, is fundamental to the neoliberal model, which
everywhere insists on comparison, evaluation and quantification. We find ourselves technically free but powerless. Whether in work
or out of work, we must live by the same rules or perish. All the major political parties promote them, so we have no political power
either. In the name of autonomy and freedom we have ended up controlled by a grinding, faceless bureaucracy.
These shifts have been accompanied, Verhaeghe writes, by a spectacular rise in certain psychiatric conditions: self-harm, eating
disorders, depression and personality disorders.
Of the personality disorders, the most common are performance anxiety and social phobia: both of which reflect a fear of other
people, who are perceived as both evaluators and competitors – the only roles for society that market fundamentalism admits. Depression
and loneliness plague us.
The infantilising diktats of the workplace destroy our self-respect. Those who end up at the bottom of the pile are assailed by
guilt and shame. The self-attribution fallacy cuts both ways: just as we congratulate ourselves for our success, we blame ourselves
for our failure, even
if we have little to do with it .
So, if you don't fit in, if you feel at odds with the world, if your identity is troubled and frayed, if you feel lost and ashamed
– it could be because you have retained the human values you were supposed to have discarded. You are a deviant. Be proud.
"... The overuse of instrumental rationality has many sources, but in the United States its historical development begins with dramatic changes in the design of municipal governments. ..."
"... In the end, potentially more so than any other factor, these changes in the fundamental design of municipal governments not only reversed the victories of Socialists but encouraged an outlook on local politics that deemphasized the people as active citizens and conceptualized them as passive shareholders who entrusted the operations of local government with managers and bureaucrats. ..."
"... Capitalism and Freeman ..."
"... In pursuit of strengthening business interests over socialist politics, municipal governments became more bureaucratic. If anything, markets and bureaucracies have had a historical mutually reinforcing relationship; the survival of the free market system has been dependent on the bureaucratization of public life. ..."
"... Genealogies of Citizenship: Markets, Statelessness, and the Right to Have Rights ..."
Bureaucracies, Markets, and the Loss of Municipal Citizenship
02.07.2018
"Liberty vanishes whenever the law, in certain cases, allows a man to cease to be a person
and to become a thing"
-Cesare Beccaria
Throughout the modern era, there has been a lingering fear of the mechanization of everyday
life through the overuse of instrumental rationality. Because the social sciences intimately
weave both outcomes and ethics, this overuse of instrumental rationality carries with it a
moral dimension. Despite having somewhat predictable behavior, people are not
things . Rather, the very notion of humanity implies a degree of agency, and agency
demands an acknowledgment for spontaneous behaviors and active choices. Nevertheless, the
growth of both bureaucracies and markets -- two common features of the modern era -- appears to
negate this truism and encourage an inverse to Kant's maximum to treat people as ends in
themselves rather than means toward some bureaucratic or profit-driven goal.
The overuse of instrumental rationality has many sources, but in the United States its
historical development begins with dramatic changes in the design of municipal governments. At
the turn of the 20th Century, Socialists in the United States had considerable success in
municipal elections. Empowered by a constituency of small-scale and heavily mortgaged farmers
and newly created industrial laborers, for a brief period, the Socialist Party posed a
significant electoral challenge to both Democrats and Republicans in America's Midwest.
Nevertheless, these successes were short-lived. In response to the electoral victories of
Socialist candidates, Progressives promoted "reform" governments that made municipalities more
both bureaucratic and market orientated. Under their guidance, the full weight of Taylorism was
brought to municipal governments. In the process, local governments became embedded with an
ideology predicated on instrumentalist rationality that justified the marginalization
participation in public life and redirected the priorities of municipal politics toward
ensuring certain monetary ends. In the end, potentially more so than any other factor, these
changes in the fundamental design of municipal governments not only reversed the victories of
Socialists but encouraged an outlook on local politics that deemphasized the people as active
citizens and conceptualized them as passive shareholders who entrusted the operations of local
government with managers and bureaucrats.
This history upturns a problematic assumption among advocates of a free market economy.
Chiding President Kennedy, Milton Friedman, in Capitalism and Freeman , proclaimed
that "the free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his
country. He will ask rather "What can I and my compatriots do through government?" to help us
discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above
all, to protect our freedom." (1) The idea that in a free market democracy people merely act
"through" government rather than "by" government implies a purely instrumental account of
public authority. For Freidman, the government is not supposed to reflect a common good, but is
simply another option for achieving the specific ends of individuals. For this reason, Friedman
argues, the ideal government for a thriving market is both limited and dispersed. However, the
history of reform government shows the opposite. In pursuit of strengthening business interests
over socialist politics, municipal governments became more bureaucratic. If anything, markets
and bureaucracies have had a historical mutually reinforcing relationship; the survival of the
free market system has been dependent on the bureaucratization of public life.
In many ways, this relationship was anticipated. Max Weber's remarks on the "iron cage" of
the modern economic order implied a shared rationality between markets and bureaucracies. (2)
In both cases, social life -- and by extension people -- is valued only to the extent that it
can fulfill certain ends, rather than being seen as an end in and of itself. Murray Bookchin's
criticism of bureaucracies -- in that they grow as a sense of citizenship declines, filling
social vacuums with "monadic individuals and family units into a strictly administrative
structure" (3) -- can just as easily apply to markets. Margaret Somers, in her work
Genealogies of Citizenship: Markets, Statelessness, and the Right to Have Rights
demonstrates that market fundamentalism has resulted in the "contractualization of citizenship"
in the United States. In doing so, Americans have reorganized "the relationship between the
state and the citizenry, from noncontractual rights and obligations to the principles and
practices of quid pro quo market exchange." (4) In decrying the loss of citizenship -- whether
through bureaucratization or market fundamentalism -- both Bookchin and Somers draw on
contemporary political realities. Yet, as will be shown, the roots of this problem run much
deeper. In the United States, the phenomenon of bringing instrumentalist rationality to the
public sphere started a century ago with the restructuring of municipal
governments.
Reform vs Machine: A Problematic Dichotomy
Few issues in urban politics have been as enduring as the institutional design of governing
bodies. The conventional view is that before the Progressive Era most municipalities were ruled
by machine governments that served myopic interests, usually geographically or ethnically
based. These machine governments were easily susceptible to corruption. Eventually, these
governments became reform regimes that merged ideals on the public good with modern concepts of
business management. Reform politics were thought to be "objective," in the sense that they
isolated public officials from parochial interests, advocated for nonpartisan elections, and
promoted efficiency in government services. (5) According to Paul Peterson, machine governments
"favored ward elections, long ballots, decentralized governing arrangements, and the close
connection between government, party, neighborhood, and ethnic association. Reformers preferred
citywide elections, short ballots, centralized governing institutions, and the application of
universalistic norms in the provision of government services." (6) In the overwhelming majority
of cases, reform governments favored small city councils and managerial systems, where the
administration of the city's activities was performed by a hired city manager, rather than the
mayor. Both during the Progressive Era and after the Second World War, America saw an explosion
of reform orientated managerial governments. (7) Judged in the terms of popularity alone,
reform governments are often assumed to be the ideal means for handling local affairs, at least
for small municipalities.
However, the degree to which reform governments objectively represent the interests of all
residents in the city has been contested. Jessica Trounstine has argued that reform governments
do not necessarily make local power more transparent. Instead, they substitute one form of
institutional bias for another. (8) For example, advocates of reform governments promote
citywide, non-partisan, winner-take-all elections in the hopes of severing the tie between
public officials and party bosses. However, this often decreases voter awareness of candidates
and results in costlier elections. Party bosses are weakened, but wealthy individuals running
for office gain electoral advantages. For this reason, the debates between reform and machine
governments have not necessarily been debates on transparency and corruption, but on which type
of local elites should be in control of the governments. This is a critical point in
understanding why certain municipalities changed to reform governments and why, in many cases,
these changes were strongly resisted.
Rice has noted that commission governments -- which were part of the reform agenda and acted
both as a theoretical and practical precursor to more managerial institutions -- were almost
unequivocally supported by business elites and bitterly opposed by labor. Often business elites
were only able to demobilize labor's opposition by making major concessions that made the
reform process far more varied and complicated than the usual narrative of machine-to-reform
proposes. (9) Nevertheless, when labor did prove itself to be a significant threat to the
established order -- as in the case of Midwest cities in the form of the Socialist Party -- the
move to managerial governments occurred swiftly, uncompromisingly, and involved players outside
of the local political landscape.
The support among business elites for reform governments was not only because such changes
ensured them electoral advantages. The structure of the reform governments often duplicated the
organizational styles that were prevalent within the private sector. Replacing large city
councils elected through wards with small commissions elected citywide made local governments
more closely resemble the structure of corporate boardrooms. Furthermore, the position of
city-managers was thought to mimic that of the chief executive officer (CEO) within a firm.
There was no expectation that the city manager would be accountable to the people directly any
more than a firm's CEO was thought to be directly accountable to its workers. Instead, the
city-manager was accountable to the council who acted as a board, while the citizens themselves
were thought to be shareholders of the city. As Stillman has observed, "commercial activities
have been one of the vital forces in shaping American society, and the businessman and the
corporation have often been instrumental in determining public values Probably no political or
administrative philosophy reflects business and corporate ideals more clearly than the city
management movement." (10) In this regard, the movement for reform governments not only wanted
to reconfigure local power to better serve business elites but believed that the values and
thinking of business elites -- which saw citizens in service of certain fiscal ends -- should
be embedded into the structure of municipal politics.
Socialists Against Reform
In 1911, after two decades of organizing, the Socialist Party in Dayton, Ohio reported
nearly 500 formal members and the support of approximately 13,000 trade unionists. With this
popular support, they successfully elected two of their members to the city council and another
three to the assessor's office. Their political strength was undoubtedly on the rise. During
the 1912 presidential election, a greater portion of the Dayton electorate voted for the
Socialist Party candidate Eugene Debs than the Progressive Party candidate Theodore Roosevelt.
(11)
In 1912, Ohio revised its constitution in order to grant home rule status to local
municipalities. This prompted twenty-five cities in the state to consider charter changes.
Dayton was one of them. With the design of local government now open, there was a strong push
by Progressives to shrink the city council, make all elections citywide, and hire a city
manager to perform administrative tasks. One notable champion of this cause was John H.
Patterson. Patterson was a local industrialist known for his experiments in "welfare
capitalism." Despite his reputation as an enlightened business owner, Patterson was notoriously
anti-union, chiding labor organizations for promoting a "restive spirit" among employees. Under
the progressive banner, Patterson promoted reform governments as a means of combining Taylorism
with republicanism. According to Paterson, the virtues of managerial and market orientated
governments were elevated to the status of a secular religion. In print and lectures, he
proudly proclaimed that "A city is a great business enterprise whose stockholders are the
people Our municipal affairs would be placed upon a strict business basis and directed, not by
partisans , but by men who are skilled in business management and social science; who would
treat our people's money as a trust fund, to be expended wisely and economically, without waste
and for the benefit of all citizens." (12) The local Socialist Party was not persuaded by
Paterson's calls for a technocratic utopia. They decried the proposed reform government as a
regressive step away from democracy. (13)
In March, 1913, only two months before the city was to vote on its new charter, a massive
flood from the Miami River hit Dayton, resulting in a state of emergency. While the local
government scrambled to deal with the crisis, Patterson utilized the opportunity to exhibit the
generosity of Dayton's business class. He opened his factory as a relief center and organized a
fundraising campaign among the business community to pay for emergency services. These actions
won him favor among the local population. When election for the new charter was held on May 20,
1913, the new reform government was approved by a 2-1 margin. Despite increasing their number
of votes in proceeding election cycle, the changes prevented the Socialist Party from taking
office again. By 1917, the Socialist Party managed to win 43% of the vote, but in citywide,
winner-take-all elections, this resulted in no representation. (14)
A similar dispossession of Socialists happened in New Castle, Pennsylvania. In 1911, New
Castle voters elected several Socialist Party members to their select board, including the
mayor, Walter V. Tyler. Despite the recalcitrance of non-socialist on the select board, often
refusing to attend meetings in order to deny a quorum, Tyler and his supporters were able to
make meaningful changes to the city. They ended petty graft and managed to get the city's
finances in order, raised wages and reduced hours for city workers, and instituted reforms to
curb police brutality. (15)
Despite these successes, the Socialists in New Castle found their ability to maintain their
tenure in public office severely limited with the passage of the Clark Act. Passed in 1913, the
Clark Act changed all third-class cities in Pennsylvania, which included New Castle, to a
commission-style government. This reduced the size of the city councils to five members,
replaced wards with citywide elections, created nonpartisan positions, and increased the number
of signatures needed to get an initiative on the ballot. Despite the appearance of nonpartisan
elections, it was clear that the new commission-style government biased the electoral system
toward Republicans. Previously, the electoral achievements of Socialists in New Castle were
partially attributed to factionalism within the local Republican Party. The editors of the
New Castles News were Republican partisans and condemned ex-Republicans who ran
independently in elections for their lack of loyalty. Nevertheless, after the passage of the
Clark Act, New Castle News editors had an overnight conversion to nonpartisan ideals,
worked with the local Board of Trade to select "men of the highest standard" to run for public
office, and were extremely successful in reinstituting Republican rule. (16) As with Dayton,
the changes effectively excluded Socialists from office. No Socialists were reelected in 1913.
Mayor Tyler's reform movement was halted, and -- due to charter changes -- Tyler himself was
unable to run for reelection. (17)
The examples of Dayton and New Castle demonstrate that reform governments did not
necessarily result in an attack on machines, but rather a turn toward more bureaucratic and
market-orientated municipalities. As Bruce M. Stave has noted, "urban structural reforms that
Socialists generally opposed, with good reason, include the often successful attempt to
institute city manager or commission forms of government. Along with substituting nonpartisan
city-wide elections for ward-based elections to city councils and school boards, such diluted
areas of socialist strength and grass-roots neighborhood control over municipal politics.
Conversely, it enhanced the power of urban elites, who had the resources and expertise to take
advantage of the new rationalized structures." (18)
Reviving Municipal Citizenship
Municipal politics in the United States has had a problematic history. In the United States,
the virtues of local sovereignty are praised to such an extent that critical examinations of
municipal governments often get lost in the adulations. There is no argument that machine
governments hindered greater democratic inclusion, but the assumption that their reform
counterparts offered a meaningful an alternative is mistaken. The reality is that more often
than not reform governments shifted power rather than dispersing it.
Advocates of reform governments claimed that they would make politics more efficient by
preventing the waste and spoilage associated with machines. Since the private sector constantly
strove for higher levels of efficiency to maximize profits, it was only reasonable to bring
private sector organizational styles into the public realm. However, this analysis
fundamentally misunderstands the nature of machine politics. Machines were not inefficient.
They were actually highly efficient is distributing the resources at their disposal. The issue
was that the rewards of that distribution were not based on competency but loyalty. Party
loyalty acts as the machine's capital, where if party bosses were willing to invest favoritism
toward certain underlings, then that boss would see a return on investments through loyalty.
The movement away from machine to reform government did not seek a fundamental dismantling of
this capitalistic relationship but instead transferred the terms so that party loyalty was
substituted for business loyalty. In doing so, municipal governments became embedded with the
values and rationality of the reigning business class. Municipal bureaucracies aided in the
creation of localized market societies. This relationship between market and bureaucracy proved
to be both self-reinforcing and enduring. The managerial concepts on local governments
popularized during the Progressive Era remain a mainstay of America's political landscape,
especially in suburban areas.
Problematically, the treatment of citizens in a polity as stockholders of a corporation
fundamentally undermines the very notion of citizenship. In a free society, the people do not
consume their government; they embody it through the exercise of their citizenship. Consumers
in a market, unlike citizens in a polity, have no presumption of equality. If anything,
consumers in a market are constantly seeking to undermine each other's equality in order to
secure the best deals. Citizenship cannot engage in this anarchy of the market. Doing so
undermines the basis of a cohesive community.
The displacement of Socialists from municipal governments could not have happened without a
grander agenda to limit democratic participation and a reimagining of citizens as means toward
ensuring business interest rather than ends. Nevertheless, this suggests a corrective to the
tendency toward market bureaucratization in local government. The expansion of democracy, above
and beyond the local realm, is essential to working against the "iron cage" of the modern
economic order. Such an expansion can only come about by embracing a deeper sense of
citizenship that challenges not only the inviolability of private property but the very
rationality that reduces citizens to nomadic cogs in a bureaucratic engine intended to maximize
profits.
(1) Friedman, Milton, Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982)
10.
(2) Weber, Max, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. ed. Richard Swedberg (New
York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009)
(3) Bookchin, Murray, Urbanization Without Cities: The Rise and Decline of Citizenship
(Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1992), 172.
(4) Somers, Margret R., Genealogies of Citizenship: Markets, Statelessness, and the Right to
Have Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 2.
(5) Rice, Bradley, Progressive Cities: The Commission Government Movement in America,
1901-1920 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1977).
(6) Peterson, Paul E, City Limits (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1981), 7.
(7) Stillman II, Richard J, The Rise of the City Manager: A Public Professional in Local
Government (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1974).
(8) Trounstine, Jessica, Political Monopolies in American Cities: The Rise and Fall of
Bosses and Reformers (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2008).
(9) Rice, Bradley, Progressive Cities: The Commission Government Movement in America,
1901-1920.
(10) Stillman II, Richard J, The Rise of the City Manager: A Public Professional in Local
Government, 7-8.
(11) Judd, Richard W, Socialist Cities: Municipal Politics and the Grass Roots of American
Socialism (Albany: State of University of New Press, 1989).
(12) Quoted from ibid, 8.
(13) Judd, Richard W, Socialist Cities: Municipal Politics and the Grass Roots of American
Socialism.
A confidence game depends upon artificially induced confidence to elicit consent from the
conned. And the consent is almost always gained by convincing the conned they will receive an
unearned gain in exchange for their consent. In other words, the con plays off the conned
person's greed and vice.
Other more complicated cons (such as those played by the sociopath powers that be) may
introduce fear and anger into the equation. Regardless of the leverage applied, the conned
plays an integral part in the con. While we helpfully label the conned as an ego soothing
victim of a crime , the word ' victim' begs the question of what exactly is a
victim if the victim played into, and along with, the overall con.
Maybe we should say we were seduced. You know, change the name to make it more palatable. It
sounds so much better thinking we were compelled beyond our control by an irresistible force to
give our consent.
There is an implicit and (usually) unspoken agreement between those running the con and
those taken by the con which promises the conned will be rewarded for his, her or their
participation. And the word rewarded doesn't necessarily mean receiving a gain. The reward
could actually mitigate or remove an already expected or threatened loss, real or
imaginary.
If we were to give those last few sentences some deeper thought, the reader might begin to
understand how governments, multinational corporations and even so-called nonprofit
organizations, controlled by a few key sociopaths, manipulate our artificially inflated fears
along with our dreams (aka the carrot and the stick) to induce consent, or at least no
resistance, to their destructive (and profitable) socioeconomic policies.
Enjoyed the article. When someone expresses thoughts that I agree with so readily, I try
to find things that I would make clearer for me. It is almost like if someone thinks exactly
like me, I look for differences that declare my own individuality.
It is difficult to explain the way you think and feel about the world, and I appreciate
your efforts. My nature is to fight back against it all, arduous task as I get older. It is a
lot easier to say to yourself that you just don't care anymore.
""Life is crazy, people are strange, locked in tight but I'm out of range, I used to care,
but things have changed."
As Gloria Steinem used to say, "The truth shall set you free. But first, it will piss you
off."
Cog, I have tried to say what you said, in other fora, and it's always met with gasps of
disbelief. I tell them "So, you're saying you just don't like his management style, because
you didn't complain about Obama's lies, war crimes, corruption, etc." usually in reply to
someone's comment that the president is stipid, crazy, and/or generally wrong... I may
bookmark this for future reference on such occasions.
Here we are in the future. Now where did I leave my rocket belt?
"... Indeed, although knowledge is power,; true, absolute knowledge may be unattainable and thus call forth, even demand an attitude
of deep humility with respect to the true nature of the universe as a whole and a sharply critical stance towards all publicly held
theories, beliefs, and viewpoints. ..."
It's simple. Given that there might well be an absolute nature/structure of the universe and our perhaps fundamentallylimited cognitive position/abilities within it can we be certain that we can be sure about the true nature of anything?
Can there be fundamental forces, matter, and material relationships of which we will never know?
While unanswerable in principle, the mere possibility of such an epistemological situation has many consequences.
Firstly, it considerably lets out the air out of our current secular hubris.
Science and technology have given us what is perhaps a false impression of our own cognitive and technical omnipotence. While
we rightly marvel at what we have achieved during the last five centuries, it does not necessarily give us the right to think that
we can, even theoretically, master and understand all that there is.
Would it be so far fetched to think that the human mind, both as it is now and will be in the future, will always be limited in
what it can know?
Although we cannot even judge the actual probability of such a proposition it should nevertheless give us pause while constructing
brash anthropocentric scenarios which inflate our own importance within the universe.
If we stop to consider the possible theoretical implications of this axiom of uncertainty we will quickly realize that
we may never know more than a part, even just a small part of existence past, present, and future.
Of course that does not mean we should stop trying to know all we can.
On the other hand, it does mean that we should be far more circumspect when offering explanations about everything whether
scientific, political, or religious.
In each of these domains, we may, it might turn out, be far off the mark.
Yet, the deeper point is that according to the above axiom we can never know for sure.
Do such thoughts open the door then to superstition and fantastical ideas of all kinds?
Yes and no.
Privately, one can believe in whatever one wants to.
However, publicly, the commonly accepted standards of reason, logic, and evidence would still apply.
In order for a proposition such as "Three-eyed pink giraffes eat hamburgers on Titan" to be even remotely true there would have
to be substantial scientific research to back it up.
Yet, even if there is credible evidence for totalistic viewpoints of any kind the axiom of uncertainty can always,
potentially, call them into question. For if there are indeed fundamental aspects of existence that are forever closed off to us;
then it follows that no comprehensive theory of everything could be completely and forever considered true. Such an axiom
will always allow for some doubt, however small, to remain.
Indeed, although knowledge is power,; true, absolute knowledge may be unattainable and thus call forth, even demand an attitude
of deep humility with respect to the true nature of the universe as a whole and a sharply critical stance towards all publicly held
theories, beliefs, and viewpoints.
" The US fabricated evidence to start the Vietnam war and the US fabricated WMD talk on the second war in Iraq. US intelligence
had no idea the Berlin Wall was about to fall. The US meddled in Russia supporting a drunk named Yeltsin because we erroneously
thought we could control him."
YUP! AMEN.
It's amusing to me that the Leftist's NOW have a blind-faith trust in government, whereas during the Vietnam war, and at the
start of the Iraq war the opposite was (justifiably) the case.
And remember, the [neoliberal] Left was all OVER how we manipulated Russia into an Oligarchy:
Hi Steve, this is exactly what we have been talking about for the last 8 years. To make
matters worse there seems to be a completely irrational belief that Shale will save the day.
Outside of the fact that shale is not processable without heavier crude, and it is at best
energy neutral, and probably negative, it is also long term unaffordable. There are 1.7
million Shale wells in the US. Over the next 5 years 1.4 million of those wells will have to
be replaced to just keep production even. That will be $6.2 trillion even if done on the
cheap. $6.2 trillion is equal to the total cost of all the finished product that will be
consumed by the US for the next 12.8 years (@ $75/barrel). Expending 12.8 years of sales
revenue to produce 5 years of oil is just not going to happen!
There seems to be a black out on this terrible situation. Some of that may be just plain
ignorance, but I suspect that the main reason is that it is politically unspeakable. For that
reason nothing is being spoken. As I have been saying for some time no one should expect big
oil, big government, or big anything to come riding to the rescue. The individual is now
completely on their own. Chose your options with discretion.
Agreed. The U.S. Shale Oil Ponzi Scheme will likely begin to disintegrate within the next
1-3 years. Already, the Permian oil productivity per well has peaked.
Then when the next Shale Oil ENRON event takes place... watch as the dominos fall.
@SRSrocco, U.S. Tight Oil depends on cheap credit. Regardless of oil prices.
Once cheap credit dries up and the previous debts are unable to be paid by drilling new
wells, the entire scheme falls apart.
Oil prices do not drive U.S. Tight Oil as much as cheap credit from easy loans.
Eventually, U S. Tight Oil using new credit cards to pay debts on old credit cards will
catch up with a vengence. Rising interest rates will be the catalyst. Rising oil prices only
prolong the increasing debt.
Didn't the EIA publish something not long ago stating their concerns that we could see oil
shortages by 2020? And around the same time, I recall that the Saudi Oil Minister came out
and stated that without more investment, we would likely see oil shortages by 2020. And then
at the recent OPEC meeting, I believe it was the Oil Minister from UAE who stated that we
need to find a new North Seas equivalent oil field EVERY YEAR to meet projected demand, which
of course is not going to happen. It has been a long slow grind since 2008 to get to this
point, but from here on out I anticipate that things will start unraveling at an ever faster
pace. Big changes on the way. But one thing that will NEVER happen is that the POTUS or some
other world leader comes out and says we are running short on energy. Instead it will be
Trade Wars, the damned Russians or some other lame propaganda -- anything but the truth.
The mitigation section of the study was most telling. It simply stated that local
sustainable economies would replace the modern era. These economies included local food
production and energy production. As this process unfolds, I simply do not see how a high
rise is going to remain habitable.
Zero hedge put a news story a while ago where (I think 2016) the US oil industry lost more
in that it earned in the previous 7 years (mining in general), so more investment wouldn't
have been coming in the US anyway - the price wasn't high enough to justify it.
Worldwide we are going to see some almightly crunch, whether it will arrive after 2020
will be seen. Ironically it might save Trump anyway if the world is seen to be beset by a oil
supply crunch since its hard to blame that on him.
The U.S. needs to get off its dead ass and start developing better batteries, solar power,
and other alternative energy sources. This was talked about in 1973, during the Oil Embargo
days, and its just astonishing the U.S. has done little since to ween itself off of oil. And
now we now have a tariff against Chinese made solar panels. DUH!!! How dumb can you get?
Look at the energy density of those power sources. You'll never run an industrial
civilization off of them. Electric cars may be great for zipping a couple of people around
town from day to day, but you're never going to run the large mining and shipping equipment
needed for our society. If you want to do that, you're going to have to develop viable
breeder reactors and the technology to manufacture liquid fuels with that energy - and this
is doable.
Right. There is nothing.....NOTHING....that can replace oil and gas as it is used and
utilized by the modern industrial society. Nothing......
What needs to happen right now is a steady rise in prices that will condition our
population to start learning to do with less cheap, easy energy. We have got to curb usage to
give society a chance to begin to learn another way.
The major obstacle to doing this responsible, rational action? The egregious, criminal
banking system that has gotten the world awash in debt to feed their greed. Any cut back in
the use of energy will destroy the economy and their gravy train.
"More than 1/2 of Jewish success is due to corrupt and criminal means."
Utter nonsense.
Jews own the Federal Reserve Bank and can hit some keys on their computer and create a few
trillion Federal Reserve notes just like *that* .
They've been injecting hundreds of billion$ into Jewish dominated Wall Street for decades
if not longer. Especially since the 2008 mass-looting of the American tax-slave. The big
banks like Goldman Sachs and Chase are all dominated by Jews, just like the Treasury. The
cash flows to other well connected Jews and gentiles, but Jews are MASSSIVELY
over-represented as the recipients of the swindled lucre.
It was rabbi Dov Zakheim who was the comptroller of the Pentagon when over two trillion
went missing. Do you suppose that cash ended up in the coffers of Presbyterian churches or
injected into the economy of Appalachia?
When some yeshiva decides they need a few tens of thousands or more for 'security'.
especially following 911, where 'lucky' Larry Silverstein collected his billions, they go to
the Treasury.
Madoff, Scott Rothstein. others.. are just the tip of the iceberg.
But the big one is the Federal Reserve Bank where they and they alone have their own
counterfeiting machine, and one thing you can say about Jews, is that they look after their
own.
There are very many hard working and intelligent Jews who earn their money, and they
deserve our admiration. But there is also a lot of graft and fraud and downright treason to
the success of many of them. The scum at Goldman Sachs and guys like Jon Corzine high on the
list.
"The scum at Goldman Sachs and guys like Jon Corzine high on the list."
I would not argue over your point that Jon Corzine is scum, but I would argue with your
insinuation that he is Jewish (otherwise why mention him in a paragraph dealing with Jews).
He's not. He's Protestant.
Sergey Krueger is wrong about questioning of gender roles. That comes from the necessity to
to have an identity wedge during neoliberal period of the USA society.
Well, you put it yourself. Liberalism as is it was during the Enlightenment was
questioning all dogmas and everything that is considered normal here we have a double aged
sword. When and what you stop questioning and reasoning about logic of certain things.
Logically they started with kings and after all things were questioned they came now to
roles of males and females, sex, gender and god forbids where this can takes us.
There are certain things that cannot be questioned for society to have a back bone. A
moral and cultural one. Otherwise things turn the way they are now. There is nothing sacred
and everything can be questioned and reasoned about.
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been
repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And
the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists
except an endless present in which the Party is always right."
― George Orwell, 1984
"... Recent SCOTUS decisions affecting organised labour will disenfranchise the worker even more. Anti union fervor might claim a short term battle, but the long term war of trade attrition will likely be lost as US companies lose their competitive edge by declaring employees liabilities rather than allies. Ludicrous. ..."
Most economic claims by the Republicans appear to be simply boneheaded assertions. They
would have us believe that tax savings for the wealthy trickle down to the less affluent. Now
they claim that the enormous slashing of government income caused by their tax cut for the
wealthy is leading to a significant decrease in the federal deficit. Apparently about a third
of the electorate are dumb enough to buy into their nonsense.
The trump tariffs are looking like the nixon tariffs of 1971. All trump, like Nixon in 1971,
cares about is the mid term election and next presidential election, and the votes of 'the
constituency of uneducated people' , as Nixon referred to them. Like Nixon, trump has total
contempt for the law and ethics. Nixon's tariffs and china visit produced his re-election in
1972, stagnation for a decade, and a loss of many millions of US jobs that we never recovered
from.
In 1970, before Nixon's China visit, Americans could get a decent job with a high school
education. After the flood of Chinese masters and PhD students that followed, encouraged by
Nixon and republican presidents since, and their dumb free but unfair market policies which made
their ultra wealthy donors unimaginably wealthy combined with Chinese protectionism to this
day-and stealing of US technology and property, currency manipulation, the neglect of US
students who pay very high fees and much more, many tens of millions of US jobs migrated to
china.
The same charlatans- the GOP and trump are manipulating uneducated white and rural
voters, who are going to pay the heaviest price for letting themselves be misled.
Trump works on the premise that MAGA is a desperately needed, long overdue, patriotic race
to save America from God only knows what. Harley Davidson, that most American of companies, has
proven the validity of this morose mantra. Like other corporations, HD has benefitted from
Trump's tax cuts while shedding American jobs: it purchased back tons of its stock then closed
a plant in Kansas. Then, following European tariffs being slapped on it, HD outsources jobs to Europe to avoid
them. What temerity!
To Trump, this is a vile act of disloyalty. He had championed Harley's cause, only to see it
abandon him. What he fails to comprehend is that very few corporations entirely buy into MAGA,
only his, apparently economically ignorant, base embrace it. Companies enjoy it where it suits
them, ignore or evade it when it doesn't. Corporations have too much power for Trump to curb.
The only thing he can do is threaten to punish them through the imposition of punitive domestic
taxes. That probably won't sit at all well with American workers, outpriced in their own
backyard. Essentially, Trump et al, through intransigence and ineptitude, have backed
themselves into a corner.
Recent SCOTUS decisions affecting organised labour will
disenfranchise the worker even more. Anti union fervor might claim a short term battle, but
the long term war of trade attrition will likely be lost as US companies lose their competitive
edge by declaring employees liabilities rather than allies. Ludicrous.
Economic propaganda has its place in promoting a healthy economy. However, it only goes so
far. Real wages will ultimately trump (no pun) a healthy consumer out -look. Trump propaganda
is a different breed all together. It promotes one thing only, a good out - look on Trump
himself. Adoration for a job well done, regardless of how "potemkin" it is, feeds the beast.
Economist, a notably disagreeable lot, do agree on at least two theories:
(1) Presidents
actually have little effect on the economy and;
(2) the policies that they do implement reach
the desired effect at least one and one half of a presidential term. Trumps tax plan, in the
short term, is as effective as a penny dropped in the ocean.
In the long term, it will blow up
the deficit and require major cuts in major governmental programs, such as Medicare and social
security. Major targets for destruction by Ryan republicans. Trumps deregulatory platform is a
"poor man's" economic policy. The long term cost of deregulation is unpredictable and
therefore, frightening. High concentrations of lead in our ground water. Atmospheric poison.
Toxic run off rears its ugly head.
Once eradicated illness and health concerns inundate a
heavily overburdened healthcare system. All the while, the Trump propaganda machine churns out
lies of triumph and facades of growth, worthy of the "Potemkin" villages.
40 years after FDR's New Deal America was humming right along; building a never before seen
middle class, thanks to the government's G.I. Bill that allowed a generation of entrepreneurs
to rise along with a generation of first time college graduates. We were building a huge
infrastructure in America, the interstate highway system, at the same time helping to rebuild
Europe and Japan. We were sending men to the moon.
40 years after Reagan and the republicans built a temple to "supply side" economics the U.S.
cannot fill her potholes.
Trump would have US hunkered down inside secure borders, quivering in fear of those brown skin
people invading US, sending our military instead of diplomats to be the face of the U.S. All
the while China is in Africa, South America, and South Asia helping to rebuild their
infrastructures and making friends and increasing their influence.
Their message isn't really Make America Great Again (MAGA) it is really Make America Hurt
(Muh).
Let's get to work and get out the vote this November or we are done.
Thanks, here is some additional reading material ..
The Unfortunate Fallout of Campus Postmodernism- The roots of the
current campus madness
"In a 1946 essay in the London Tribune entitled "In Front of Your Nose," George Orwell noted that "we are all capable of
believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as
to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on
it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."
"... By Philip E. Mirowski, Carl Koch Chair of Economics and the History and Philosophy of Science, University of Notre Dame. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Inside Job ..."
"... Philosophy. The neoliberal PR campaign of 'the market is the ultimate and true arbiter of all' has all the appearance of a regression to what I can only call inverted marxist dialectical-materialism as espoused by the old soviets; where anything, even scientific findings, that threatened the supremacy of the doctrine's claim of economic inevitability, was suppressed. ( No wonder the old soviet finally collapsed. ) The neoliberals substitutes a sort of libertarian dialectical-materialism that requires suppression of any theory that contradicts their claim of 'market infallibility' and inevitability. This is dogma, not science or even economics. ..."
At the beginning of May 2018, there was a brief furor over donations from Koch
family-affiliated philanthropies to fund the Mercatus Institute and the newly-named Antonin
Scalia School of Law at George Mason University (GMU). Although articles concerning the
admirable efforts of the GMU student organization UnKoch My Campus appeared in many of
the prominent news outlets, the attention span of journalists seemed to barely outpace that of
interest in one of Donald Trump's tweets, with even less consequence. But more to the point,
the silence of the economics profession concerning the revelations was pretty deafening.
Briefly, I would like to revisit why this was so and why it matters.
The details of the controversy can be briefly summarized: the assortment of Koch family
foundations and allied charitable cutouts (which some libertarians have dubbed the "Kochtopus,"
but will henceforth here be shortened to 'the Kochs') have been making targeted donations to
more than 300 schools since 2005, predominantly to economics departments. But George Mason
University has been the most lavishly favored, garnering more than a third of the estimated
$150 million bequeathed to universities from 2005-2015. The event that stirred campus
resistance at GMU was a massive donation of $10 million from the Kochs tied to a $20 million
donation from an anonymous benefactor to rename the Law School after Antonin Scalia, "formally"
earmarked for "student scholarships." The first thing one notices was the budgetary legerdemain
which obscured the relationship between faculty selection and line items in budgetary terms.
Thus, the GMU Provost S. David Wu could tell his Faculty Senate in April 2016 that the bequest
came with "no strings attached The entire $30M is for scholarships for students and nothing
else." This narrative might have prevailed, if not for the document dump by UnKoch My
Campus at the end of April, [1]
a result of a FOIA suit by Transparency GMU , which detailed the series of negotiations
with the Kochs (including the overwhelming role of figures from the Federalist Society as
intermediaries: another Koch funded arm), including stipulations of how designated
representatives would have input into GMU hiring decisions. This forced GMU President Angel
Cabrera to reverse earlier statements that existing donor arrangements had not been allowed to
influence internal academic matters. This, in turn, was the trigger which attracted the
national press. As Inside Higher Ed put it: "academic values have long held that donors
don't get to pick who holds chairs, or evaluate them."
"It's now abundantly clear that the administration of Mason, in partnership with the
Mercatus Center and private donors, violated principles of academic freedom, academic control
and ceded faculty governance to private donors," said Bethany Letiecq, President of GMU's
chapter of the AAUP. But this reaction might underestimate the scope of the problem, reducing
it to a mere matter of moral integrity. I shall argue instead that this event has more
structural underpinnings, touching upon the very conception of education in relation to
markets, and involve some crucial aspects of economic theory.
Broadly speaking, economists greeted this controversy with a big yawn: this sort of thing
happens all the time, so don't get your panties in a twist. Indeed, the Kochs have been making
similar grants to many universities for more than a decade, as have other philanthropies. The
attitude was that the GMU case was nothing special.
How do economists justify the unflappable lightness of their nonchalance?
First off, many opine that the donors don't really interfere in academic matters; it
is just the optics that are less than optimal. There are some crucial details which mitigate
this pronouncement when it comes to the GMU case, which are dealt with in a footnote.
[2]
Nevertheless, in general, most economists are quick to denounce the idea that there are subtle
procedural moves attached to donations that substantially alter the practices of universities,
as well as the composition of what is taught and researched.
Secondly, for most economists, there are no such things as conflicts of interest, at least
when it comes to economic thinking. They regularly declare with ardor that no one is
compromising their pronouncements or perverting their beliefs for money. Years ago, I
documented this attitude with regard to the culpability of economists for the Great Crash of
2007-8, even in the face of embarrassments such as the scathing portrayal of certain figures in
the documentary Inside Job , or the prospect of a code of ethics for economists by the
American Economics Association (AEA), a point to which I will return. [3]
In the GMU case, the prescription for disclosure was rejected -- hence the need for FOIA
requests. The economists generally argued that the people involved had long ago settled upon
their personal political beliefs; they were just being selected by the donors to provide a
coherent curriculum in "free market doctrine." I shall argue below that this imprecision over
the criteria of which doctrines have been selected allow this sense that the ecology of
knowledge persists unaltered in the face of concerted Koch intervention.
Third, the orthodox economist would be inclined point out that all potential donors, just
like all fledgling academics, possess their own prior interests and convictions, which will be
subject to further selection one way or another. It is not the money that makes the
difference in the larger scheme of things. As the late Craufurd Goodwin of Duke University used
to say, "The only tainted money is the money that t'aint [ sic ] mine." In other words,
the sociology of knowledge pretty much works independently of the wishes of any funders
involved, since everyone is selfishly scrambling for support. Money as such never taints the
well of human inquiry, or so most economists postulate. Of course, one's appreciation for this
putative conservation rule might be qualified when one learns that Goodwin had himself been a
Program Officer for European and International Affairs under McGeorge Bundy at the Ford
Foundation during the Cold War. [4]
Finally, although they might not say this out loud in front of journalists, many economists
tend to suspect that all the complaints about the Kochs are just sour grapes, an ideological
reaction deriving from the wailers' disdain for the politics of the Koch brothers and their
minions. After all, what's so suspicious about wanting to "rectify the bias" of academics
hostile to free markets and freedom of speech? That sounds like something most economists would
voluntarily support in any event, independent of whomever was fronting the funding. But, just
as in the previous cases, this ignores the actual content of the doctrines that the Koch
brothers, as well as that of many of their fellow travelers and cooperating philanthropists,
[5]
seek to promote through their initiatives.
It will come as no surprise to realize that public education is being brutally weaned from
state support across the developed world in the recent past, and that private funding has been
touted as the deliverance for cash-strapped universities. In this regard, it is pivotal to
realize the significance of the fact that George Mason University is a public and not a
private university. Far from being a mere shifting of sources of sustenance, this trend itself
constitutes one of the prime prescriptions of the political doctrine that motivates the Kochs,
namely, neoliberalism. [6]
Neoliberalism shouldn't be confused with actual libertarianism; it is predicated upon
intervention to bring about the types of government and markets that the neoliberals believe
are necessary for the success of capitalism: it just won't happen by itself. One of their
central doctrines relevant to the current controversy is their belief that an efficient market
is one that processes and validates information, and conveys it to the appropriate agents when
and where they need it. Human knowledge is thus first and foremost a market phenomenon.
A direct consequence of this doctrine is that the state should not control public education:
the purpose of education is the personal accumulation of human capital, and not the
creation of the common denominator of an educated citizenry. Hence many of the major figures of
the Neoliberal Thought Collective -- Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, Charles Koch -- long ago
proposed that education be "privatized" in most of its various manifestations. Knowledge is
paltry if not put up for sale, as they see it. This is the major consideration which dictates
that the points at issue at GMU and elsewhere are not merely some symmetrical offsetting
response to left wing donations to universities; rather, the whole point of the Koch brothers'
intervention is to produce a different kind of university , one which renders
government-run education much more responsive to market signals and market dictates. It is a
world where people of means can freely buy the kinds of doctrines that they wish to be conveyed
to the young, without being coy or ambagious about it. Hence the Koch's doctrines and their
philanthropic behaviors are tightly bound into a single package, displaying a coherence not
found in the motives of lesser philanthropists. This explains why the Kochs are willing to
conduct their negotiations with universities in secret, to carry out their stipulations through
cutouts and hard to trace intermediaries and foundations, to package their offers with other
rich (and anonymous) donors en banc and to impose conditions upon their bequests that
effectively neutralize all previous principles of academic freedom in the long run.
There is a different implication of neoliberal conceptions of knowledge, and that extends to
the ideas which constitute the microeconomic orthodoxy. Once information was introduced into
the standard pricing model, it was discovered there was no single correct way to formalize
epistemology. Through a sequence of different models, the profession moved from the agent as
capable of super-cognition, to the portrait of the agent as a flawed vessel for knowledge,
offset by a neoliberal notion of the market as super-information processor. [7]
Truth became a function of the skewed and arbitrary ability to pay; and consequently,
economists were deemed to have possessed superior wisdom concerning whom should get to know
what under which circumstances. As self-appointed Engineers of the Human Soul, this reinforced
their conviction that there was no need to worry about conflicts of interest, nor indeed, about
the increasing prevalence of unashamed mendacity and fake news. [8]
Thus, the Koch interventions were therefore regarded as essentially harmless.
Of course, economists would be most interested in the ways this promotes the careers of
other economists, but the ambitions of the neoliberal thought collective extends well beyond
the social sciences, even unto the realm of the natural sciences. Neoliberalism is supremely
hostile to expertise, which is the flip side of its hostility to old-school universities. Hayek
denounced intellectuals as 'second-hand dealers in ideas', and modern neoliberals extrapolate
that inclination to the limit. In their view, even natural scientists need to learn to
subordinate their own research to "the market," and accept that tomorrow the market might
devalue their own expertise in favor of the beliefs of less trained participants. "Freedom" is
in this instance made manifest as the ability to insert your own 2 cents at will; let the
market sort it out. This insight prompts another reconstruction of university life, this time
in the direction of so-called 'open science' and 'citizen science'. [9]
The literal construction of a 'marketplace of ideas' leads directly to the elevation of the
market as the ultimate validator of truth in most dimensions, and the subordination of
professional researchers to a less central role, surrounded by platforms that harvest the
unremunerated labor of the reserve army of the undereducated. This is creative destruction with
a vengeance, which further diminishes the role of the university.
Consequently, while economists tend to think they come equipped to understand all the
implications of a thoroughgoing marketplace of ideas, the four conventional ideas sketched
above reveal that they currently are far from having a comprehensive appreciation of the
"economics of information" as it plays out in the world.
An example of this inadequate approach is a very brief code of professional conduct ratified
in April 2018 by the AEA. Its actual wording is significant. It states, "Integrity demands
honesty, care and transparency in conducting and presenting research; disinterested assessment
of ideas; acknowledgement of the limits of expertise; and disclosure of real and perceived
conflicts of interest." [10]
There was nothing in the statement proposing that the AEA or any other institution should
promote or enforce disclosure, nor indeed define what should be disclosed; it says absolutely
nothing at all about "academic freedom." "Integrity" is apparently conceived as personal
virtue, although a subsequent paragraph promotes "a professional environment with equal
opportunity and fair treatment for all economists." This species of "environment" seems be more
concerned with employment of economists than the preservation of academic inquiry as such.
This is why the GMU incident deserves far more scrutiny than it has received from
economists, and academics in general.
[2]
Some sources report the document dump reveals that 'the Kochs' reserved the right of
designation of members on faculty selection committees and veto rights in earlier gifts to
Mercatus, but in the Scalia School case, the agreement stated that they would have no power
over retention or promotion. On this, see https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/washington-post-koch-brothers-scoop-falls-apart/
. However, the situation at GMU was far more complex than that, because the emails
independently stipulated whom among existing Koch-financed GMU faculty and the Federalist
society would make such decisions for the Law School; and furthermore, the Kochs reserved the
right to withdraw from the agreement without notice or just cause. Clearly, this Sword of
Damocles allowed them to veto any subsequent choices, all the while asserting formally in the
document that they unreservedly supported academic freedom. The Kochs, after decades of
experience, have gotten good at circumventing faculty who don't understand how the takeover of
universities actually works.
[3]
See Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste (Verso, 2013), pp.
218-223.
[5]
See, for instance, the fascinating case of BB&T: Douglas Beets, "BB&T, Atlas Shrugged,
and the ethics of corporation influence on college curricula," Journal of Academic
Ethics , 2015, (13):311-344.
[7]
This is described in detail in: Philip Mirowski and Edward Nik-Khah, The Knowledge we Have
Lost in Information , (Oxford, 2017).
[8]
See, for instance, Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse Shapiro, "Competition and Truth in the Market
for News," Journal of Economic Perspectives , (2008) 22:133-154. On his later work, "A
reader of our study could very reasonably say, based on our set of facts, that it is unlikely
that fake news swayed the election," said Gentzkow. At:
https://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/18/stanford-study-examines-fake-news-2016-presidential-election
.
The New Golden Rule: "Them as has the gold (or money and influence) rules." (re-cast to
avoid any charge that I am a Gold Bug )
I recall other actions by many sociopathic malefactors of great wealth to control the
larger narrative and school curricula through history, like "supporting" the Catholic Church
in all its machinations. The Reformation opened the door, along with common understandings of
Darwin's notions, to Calvinism. I was bred up in the Presbyterian church, where TULIP
blossomed in the young minds of the catechism classes and was reinforced in every bit of the
Westminster Fellowship youth group's activities (the Total Depravity proven by all the
efforts of young hormone sufferers to get into each others; pants). A pretty sick set of
doctrines, http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism.html
, when one gets on a little bit in life, and sees how humans really interact, and how "the
Calvinist economics" actually work. https://marketmonetarist.com/2011/10/20/calvinist-economics-the-sin-of-our-times/
So the ho-hum economists and the media midgets are sort of right, at least in pointing out
that there's nothing new in what the Kochtopus and all the other wealthy individuals and
their "philanthropies" are about. Huge amounts are spent to control the content of Texas
lower-grade text books, because as those go, so goes all the curricula of most of the
country. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/06/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/
"If only the people were aware of what is being done to them, they would
__________________."
The fact that the evergreen Glenn Hubbard interview from Inside
Job didn't make Hubbard a pariah
in the economics community tells us all we need to know about
the intersectionality of integrity and academic economics.
Oh, they don't argue that. They know that monetary incentives work. They just don't want
to agree that money isn't neutral in terms of what it 'incentivises' any more than does how
money is distributed in terms of macroeconomic 'growth'.
This allows them to pretend that money is neutral.
Back in day, our Economics faculty used to tell us that the study of economics was "value
free." What was presented was simply a reflection of real world conditions. No value
judgements were to be made. These fellows, like many of our parents, were all deeply scared
products of the Great Depression and committed Keynesians (public policy anyone?) to a man.
Of course, all we had to do was pick up a copy of Theory of the Leisure Class, and if
Veblen's prose didn't hurt our hair to badly, we knew this was a bunch of nonsense.
The worthy successors to this faculty now offer two different Bachelor of Science in
Economics degrees. Indeed, the profession has gone entirely through the looking-glass. If we
see the past (economic anthropology) or the future (post-capitalism), history will be
destroyed. Now we all know that the Red Queen has a cock-eyed head and the royal crown would
never fit her. Moreover, the Red Queen ate the stolen tart and is beyond redemption in any
case. Are we to believe the Jabberwocky? Is time itself in danger? Can we recapture the
Chronosphere? Can we get back through the looking-glass? And if we do, will we all wake up in
mental hospitals?
Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University
Hmm.. ASSoL at George Mason University.
Can these people be that stupid?
I'm enrolled in ASSoL at GMU, or
I'm an ASSoL Graduate
One could not have chosen a better name working for Monty Python.
Secondly, for most economists, there are no such things as conflicts of interest,
Because each item, pronouncement, thesis, or work product is to ensure the Economist's
Master that their view of the universe is correct, then, obviously there is no Conflict of
Interest.
"The Corruption of Economics" by Mason Gaffney dives deep into this. "False Education in
our Colleges and Universities" by Emil O. Jorgensen referenced within this gem gives an
example – ' in the 1924 Professor Richard T. Ely was the director of the Institute for
Research in Land Economics and Public Utilities at the University of Wisconsin at Madison but
relocated over questions of it being entirely financed by certain corporations and economic
groups seeking to have privilege and monopoly taxed less and industry and consumption taxed
more Although it was denied that the removal of Prof. Ely was in any way due to compulsion,
it is a curious fact that no sooner had Prof. Ely gone than the Board of Regents voted that
no more money "shall in the future be accepted by or in behalf of the University of Wisconsin
from any incorporated educational endowments or organizations of like character." But Prof.
Ely with his old-time shrewdness and skill had dodged the descending ax. Suspecting evidently
that such a resolution would sooner or later be passed, the Professor began in the early part
of the year to cast about for a safe place to escape and picked out as his refuge
Northwestern University in Evanston – a privately endowed institution noted for its
conservatism and its close affiliation with the powers that be Having definitely laid his
plans Prof. Ely then added Frank O. Lowden (former governor of Illinois) and Nathan W.
MacChesney (General Counsel for the National Association of Real Estate Boards as well as a
trustee of Northwestern University) to his own board of trustees Very grateful for the
welcome extended to him by Northwestern University, Prof. Ely commences his activities in
that institution with larger plans, wider ambitions and a harder determination than ever to
build up a great national machine that will promote, under the cloak of "disinterested
research," not the welfare of all, but the special interests of a few '
Ely had a complicated history. Business interests tried to drive him out of the Univ of
Wisconsin in the 1890s not because he was a corrupt neoclassical economist but because he was
argued to be a socialist. (He wasn't.) He was responsible for bringing JR Commons, one of the
great institutional economists, to Wisconsin and at least partly responsible for the quality
of the economics faculty at Wisconsin that developed in the 1910s many of the state programs
(unemployment insurance, workers compensation) that ultimately became models for the New
Deal.
But he became more right-wing as he got older. He campaigned to have Robert LaFollette
removed from the Senate because LaFollette was anti-WW1 and then went off to Northwestern as
a pretty conventional rightwing economist.
Interestingly, a number of pro-labor New Deal economists followed a similar trajectory.
For example, Leo Wolman.
Thanks very much for this post. This has been playing out at my uni for some time now.
2 thoughts:
Money. The Kochs certainly appear to hate taxes almost as much as regulation. Public
universities and colleges require adequate funding from the public(taxes) to support the
mission of education – as opposed to just training.
A good education requires good teachers; professors who are paid well enough to make a
career in academia – not a king's ransom but not a church mouse salary either –
and the freedom to research into all areas.
So, the neoliberals get a huge tax cut passed in states and at the federal level; then
claim there's not enough state/federal money to support higher ed (please, no MMT talk here,
I'm making a different point); as higher ed struggles financially, pretend to be a white
knight riding in with grant money to save the day. It's cheaper than taxes for the grantors,
since the "white knight" controls how much and how often they give money. And, it gives them
leverage over the curriculum. There are many tricks to claim a "chaired" position isn't
"really in the department", so the grants are "not changing the quality of education" they
will argue. It's a vicious financial circle for higher ed .
Philosophy. The neoliberal PR campaign of 'the market is the ultimate and true arbiter
of all' has all the appearance of a regression to what I can only call inverted marxist
dialectical-materialism as espoused by the old soviets; where anything, even scientific
findings, that threatened the supremacy of the doctrine's claim of economic inevitability,
was suppressed. ( No wonder the old soviet finally collapsed. )
The neoliberals substitutes a sort of libertarian dialectical-materialism that requires
suppression of any theory that contradicts their claim of 'market infallibility' and
inevitability. This is dogma, not science or even economics.
People who are paid to think, think what they are paid to think.
The Kochs, and those like them, seem to labor under under the delusion that reality will
conform to their beliefs. Since they are powerful, they are able to inflict this delusion on
society.
The return to the real world from the world of delusion is always extremely costly. We
will all pay.
"... A Stigler Center panel examines the influence of Big Five tech firms over political discourse and the marketplace of ideas. ..."
"... "Our country has allowed the concentration of power in giant intermediaries -- Google, Facebook, and Amazon -- vastly more powerful than the original intermediary which we fought, which was the British East India Company." ..."
"... "We have reporters, editors, and publishers of our newspapers who live in fear every day. This is true of the people who publish our books and who write our books. They live in fear [that] Amazon is going to shut them down. Whose fault is that? It's the people in the antitrust community." ..."
"... "Google not only vanquished competition. What it did is it vanquished the antitrust enforcers who are supposed to protect the process of competition." ..."
"... "Basically, Section 230 was a libertarian's dream. They got what they wanted. I am a limited government conservative. What they wanted was a no-government world." ..."
At one point during Mark Zuckerberg's
Senate hearing in April , the Facebook CEO had the following peculiar exchange with Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC):
Graham: But you, as a company, welcome regulation?
Zuckerberg: I think, if it's the right regulation, then yes.
Graham: You think the Europeans had it right?
Zuckerberg: I think that they get things right.
Graham: . So would you work with us in terms of what regulations you think are necessary in your industry?
Zuckerberg: Absolutely.
Graham: Okay. Would you submit to us some proposed regulations?
Zuckerberg: Yes. And I'll have my team follow up with you so, that way, we can have this discussion across the different
categories where I think that this discussion needs to happen.
Graham: Look forward to it.
This telling bit of dialogue was part of an overall pattern: the hearing was meant to hold Facebook (and Zuckerberg himself, as
the company's founder, CEO, and de facto
single ruler ) accountable for the
mishandling of
millions of people's private data. Yet
one after
another , the senators were asking an evasive Zuckerberg if he would be willing to endorse their bills and proposals to regulate
Facebook. This mode of questioning repeated itself (to a somewhat lesser extent) during the House's
tougher questioning of Zuckerberg the following day.
Needless to say, most company CEOs grilled by Congress following a major scandal that impacts millions of people and possibly
the very nature of
American democracy are not usually treated in this way -- as private regulators almost on equal footing with Congress.
Facebook, however, is not a typical company. As
a recent Vox piece noted, with its vast reach of more than two billion users worldwide, Facebook is more akin to
a government or a "powerful sovereign," with Zuckerberg -- due to his unusual level of control over it -- being the "key lawgiver."
Zuckerberg acknowledged as much himself when he said, in a
much-quoted moment of candor
, that "in a lot of ways Facebook is more like a government than a traditional company." More than other technology companies,
he added, Facebook is "really setting policies."
The notion that corporations can become so powerful that they are able to act as a "form of private government" (to quote
Zephyr Teachout )
has long been part of the antitrust literature. Indeed, as the Open Market Institute's Barry Lynn and Matt Stoller recently noted
during a panel at the Stigler Center's Digital Platforms and Concentration antitrust conference, it is deeply rooted in the
rich tradition of antimonopoly
in America.
That digital platforms are major political
players has also been
well documented
.
Once disdainful of politics, in the past two years Google, Facebook, and Amazon have dramatically ramped up their lobbying efforts,
as the public and media backlash against their social, economic, and political power intensified. Google, which enjoyed
unprecedented access to the Obama White House, is now the
biggest lobbyist in Washington, with other tech platforms not far behind.
Market power begetting political power is
not new in itself. As the participants
of the Stigler panel noted, it is the immense power
that concentrated digital intermediaries like Google and Facebook wield over digital markets, human interaction and the marketplace
of ideas, particularly when it comes to the distribution of political information, that presents a unique challenge. As Lina Khan
(also of Open Markets)
recently
noted , the current landscape of Internet media is one in which a handful of companies "are basically acting as private regulators,
as private governments, over the dissemination and organization of information in a way that is totally unchecked by the public."
The latter part, at least, seems to be changing rapidly, as Americans (and millions more worldwide) grapple with
ongoing revelations showing the profound
impact that digital monopolies have on political opinions and outcomes, in the US and across the world. As Congressman John Sarbanes
(D-MD) said during Zuckerberg's House hearing
in April: "Facebook is becoming a self-regulated superstructure for political discourse."
Left to right: Scott Cleland, Ellen Goodman, Matt Stoller, Barry Lynn, Guy Rolnik
The exact nature of tech platforms' political power, its roots, and how to best deal with it -- all questions debated during the
Stigler Center panel -- are complex and varied. But the key question seems rather simple. As Sarbanes put it during the same Congressional
hearing: "Are we, the people, going to regulate our political dialogue, or are you, Mark Zuckerberg, going to end up regulating the
political discourse? ״
A Private Regulator of Speech
Facebook, said Rutgers Law School professor Ellen Goodman, operates as a private speech regulator. As such, much like public governments,
it "privileges some [forms of] speech over others." Unlike governments, however, which as regulators of speech purport to support
public good, Facebook has adopted a "First Amendment-like radical libertarianism" through which it has so far refused to differentiate
between "high- and low-quality information, truth or falsity, responsible and irresponsible press."
Facebook, famously, argues that it is not a media company, but a technology company. "It's not a player, it's not a [referee],
it's just the engineer who made the field," said Goodman, the co-director of the Rutgers Institute for Information Policy & Law.
The purpose of Facebook's "First Amendment rhetoric," she noted, is "to maximize data flow on its platform," but by doing so, "it
implies, or even says explicitly, that it's standing in the shoes of the government."
Facebook and other platforms, said Goodman, have benefited from the process of deregulation and budget cuts to public media --
a process that has predated the Internet, and led to Washington essentially "giving up" on media policy. The government effectively
"exempted these platforms from the kind of ordinary regulation that other information intermediaries were subjected to." With "platforms
in the shoes of government, [and] government out of media policy," the concentration of platform power over information flows was
allowed to continue undisturbed.
The problem, however, is that much like fellow FAANGs Amazon and Google, Facebook is not just an impartial governor, but a market
participant interested in "monopolizing the time of its users," with a strong incentive to privilege its own products and business
model that "eviscerates journalism."
"It also tunes its algorithm to favor certain kinds of speech and certain speakers," added Goodman. "There's almost no transparency,
save for what it selectively, elliptically, and sometimes misleadingly posts on its blog."
"People Live in Fear"
In a seminal
1979 essay on what he termed the "political content" of antitrust, former FTC chairman Robert Pitofsky argued that "political
values," such as "the fear that excessive concentration of economic power will foster anti-democratic political pressures," should
be incorporated into antitrust enforcement. In recent years, this view has been
echoed by a
growing number of
antitrust scholars
, who argue that the way antitrust enforcement has been conducted in the US for the past 40 years -- solely through the prism of
"consumer welfare" -- is ill equipped to deal with the new
threats posed by digital platforms.
The Unites States, remarked Lynn during the panel, was born "out of rebellion against concentrated power, the British East India
Company." The original purpose of antimonopoly in America, said Lynn, was the protection of personal liberty from concentrated economic
and political power: "to give everybody the ability to manage their own property in the ways that they see fit, manage their own
lives in the way that they see fit. To be truly independent of everybody else. To not be anybody else's puppet." Liberty and democracy,
he added, "are functions of antimonopoly."
A state in which Facebook and Google wield enormous influence over the flow of information -- where, to quote
a recent piece by Wired
's Nicholas Thompson and Fred Vogelstein, "every publisher knows that, at best, they are sharecroppers on Facebook's massive
industrial farm" -- is antithetical to this ethos, said Lynn, and is firmly rooted in the "absolute, complete failure" of antitrust
in the United States. "Our country has allowed the concentration of power in giant intermediaries -- Google, Facebook, and Amazon
-- vastly more powerful than the original intermediary which we fought, which was the British East India Company." These digital
intermediaries, he added, are "using their power in ways that are directly threatening our most fundamental liberties and our democracy."
"Our country has allowed the concentration of power in giant intermediaries -- Google, Facebook, and Amazon -- vastly
more powerful than the original intermediary which we fought, which was the British East India Company."
The blame for the outsize influence that Facebook and other digital platforms have over the political discourse, said Lynn, rests
squarely on the shoulders of the antitrust community: "For 200 years in this country, antimonopoly was designed to create freedom
from masters. In 1981, when we got rid of our traditional antimonopoly and replaced it with consumer welfare, we created a system
that has given freedom to master."
In today's concentrated media landscape, he contended, "people live in fear. We have reporters, editors, and publishers of our
newspapers who live in fear every day. This is true of the people who publish our books and who write our books. They live in fear
[that] Amazon is going to shut them down. Whose fault is that? It's the people in the antitrust community."
"We have reporters, editors, and publishers of our newspapers who live in fear every day. This is true of the people
who publish our books and who write our books. They live in fear [that] Amazon is going to shut them down. Whose fault is that?
It's the people in the antitrust community."
Lynn went on to quote from Thompson and Vogelstein's Wired piece: "The social network is roughly 200 times more valuable
than the Times . And journalists know that the man who owns the farm has the leverage. If Facebook wanted to, it could quietly
turn any number of dials that would harm a publisher -- by manipulating its traffic, its ad network, or its readers."
"This was hidden in the middle of the article," said Lynn. "[Thompson], as a journalist, felt obliged to put this out there He
was crying out to the people in this community, in the antitrust community. He's saying 'protect me, the publisher, the editor of
this magazine. Protect me, the reporter. Please make sure that I have the independence to do my work.'"
The "Code of Silence" Has Been Broken
Recent
changes
to Facebook's newsfeed have caused referral traffic from Facebook to media companies' websites to
sharply decline , once again raising concerns about the significant impact that the company has on the media industry. The satirical
news site The Onion , for instance, has launched a public war against Facebook, calling it "an unwanted interloper between
The Onion and our audience." "We have 6,572,949 followers on Facebook who receive an ever-decreasing amount of the content
we publish on the network," the site's editor-in-chief, Chad Nackers, told
Business Insider .
The
backlash by major news outlets and
politicians across
the
political spectrum against the power of Facebook and other tech platforms as de facto regulators of speech on the Internet is
a new phenomenon, said Guy Rolnik, a Clinical Associate Professor for Strategic Management at the University of Chicago Booth school
of Business, during the panel. Until not too long ago, he said, Internet monopolies were the "darlings of the news media." Less than
a year ago , he noted, Zuckerberg was even
touted
by several media outlets as a viable presidential candidate. "The idea that a person who has unprecedented private control over personal
data and the public discourse at large would also be the president of the United States was totally in the realm and perimeter of
what is legitimate," he said.
What has changed? "In many ways, what has changed is that many people associate Facebook today with the election of Donald Trump.
This is why we see so much focus on those issues that were very salient and important for years," Rolnik maintained. Trump's election,
and Facebook's role in the lead-up to it, broke the "code of silence."
Nevertheless, newsrooms today, he said, still do everything in their power "to make sure that everything is shareable on Facebook."
In the words of Thompson and Vogelstein, they are still "sharecroppers on Facebook's massive industrial farm."
Google has "Politically Hijacked the US Antitrust Enforcement Process"
Scott Cleland, president of the consultancy firm Precursor LLC and former deputy US coordinator for international communications
and information policy in the George HW Bush administration, has long warned that concentration among digital platforms will negatively
impact the US economy and society at large.
In 2007, Cleland testified
before the Senate on the then-proposed Google-DoubleClick merger, calling upon antitrust enforcers to block the merger and warning
that lax antitrust enforcement (of the kind that ultimately led the Google-DoubleClick merger to be approved) would allow Google
to become the "ultimate Internet gatekeeper" and the "online-advertising bottleneck provider picking content winners and losers"
-- both of which came true. In 2011, he published the book Search & Destroy: Why You Can't Trust Google Inc . , in which he warned readers of Google's surveillance-based business
model and its "unprecedented centralization of power over the world's information."
US antitrust enforcers, he said, were initially "very tough" on Google during the first years of the George W. Bush administration.
Between 2008 and 2012, both the Bush II and Obama administrations brought "strong and consistent antitrust scrutiny and enforcement
to Google." Then, in 2013, the Federal Trade Commission decided to drop its case against the company, despite the
conclusion of its
staff that Google had used anticompetitive tactics. Following Obama's reelection, which Google at the time was credited with delivering,
antitrust enforcement against Big Tech firms essentially ceased. "They shut down all those investigations and they did nothing for
the last five years. DOJ went from very active -- four or five major antitrust actions -- to nothing. Crickets."
Back then, Google and Facebook were still "fiercely competing," he said. Google was going after Facebook's territory with Google
Plus, and Facebook countered by going after Google search with Yahoo and Bing. But then, in 2014, something happened: the large tech
firms "mysteriously stopped competing."
"Yahoo returned to working with Google. Apple dropped Bing for Siri and moved to Google search. Apple and Microsoft dropped their
patent suits, and then Microsoft and Google made peace after scratching each other's eyes out. Google went from 70 percent share
of search and search advertising in the PC market to 95 percent of that in both of those markets today," said Cleland.
What happened? Cleland points to the what he calls the "Google School of No-Antitrust," a narrative with which according to him
Google had been trying to "influence public opinion, the media, elected and government officials, and US and state antitrust enforcers,
to make the public believe Google (and other Internet platforms) have no antitrust risk or liability, because they offer free innovative
products and services, and to make conservatives believe that the Google School of No-Antitrust and the Chicago School's consumer
welfare standard and application are the same, when they are not."
Google, he asserted, "not only vanquished competition. What it did is it vanquished the antitrust enforcers who are supposed to
protect the process of competition." It did so, he argued, by "politically hijacking the most important market, which is information."
"Google not only vanquished competition. What it did is it vanquished the antitrust enforcers who are supposed to protect
the process of competition."
Cleland, who identifies as a free market conservative, argued that the current Internet is far from a free market. "Who thinks
it's a good idea that all of the world's information goes through one bottleneck?" he asked, adding that "all the bad things that
you're seeing right now are the result of policy."
One such policy is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which provided Internet companies with legal immunity
for the content their users generated or shared and is
often
credited with enabling the creation of the Internet as we know it today. Cleland sees Section 230 as "market structuring" and
has compared it to the libertarian concept of creating artificial islands outside any governmental territory, known as "
seasteading ."
"Section 230 says -- I'm paraphrasing, but that's what it says -- that US policy recognizes that the Internet is a free market
that should be unfettered by federal and state regulations," said Cleland. "Basically, Section 230 was a libertarian's dream. They
got what they wanted. I am a limited government conservative. What they wanted was a no-government world."
"Basically, Section 230 was a libertarian's dream. They got what they wanted. I am a limited government conservative.
What they wanted was a no-government world."
Much of today's problems regarding the conduct of digital platforms, he said, results from this policy. "Twenty-two years ago,
we as a nation immunized all interactive computer services from any civil liability. We said, 'It is OK. There is no accountability,
no responsibility for you looking the other way, when your platform or things that are going on on your platform harm others.'"
Section 230, he maintained, "basically created 21 st -century robber barons. Those guys know they have the full weight
of the government. If they go to court, they're going to win, and they have almost all the time."
Antitrust Is "One Part of the Answer"
When it comes to addressing these threats to free speech and democratic discourse, said Goodman, antitrust is only "one part of
the answer." The other part, she asserted, is regulation.
"The First Amendment that we have, that we know and love today," she said, "was not born in 1789 in Philadelphia. It developed
in the latter part of the 20th century against a particular set of industrial and social practices that mitigated some of the costs
of free speech and spread the benefits."
Lawmakers and policymakers, she argued, should "retrieve and resuscitate the vocabulary of media policy," focusing on three core
values: "freedom of mind and autonomy; non-market values of diversity and localism/community; and a concept of the public interest
and fiduciary responsibility."
Whenever someone makes an argument for using antitrust or regulation as a way to structure markets of information, Stoller cautioned,
there are those who will argue that this amounts to censorship. When asked how to avoid censorship when discussing the use government
power over speech, Goodman was conflicted: "There is no way around that. There's a real tension here between absolute liberty of
speech and controls on speech," she said. We cannot have this whole conference with us fantasizing about various regulatory possibilities
that involve use restrictions -- limits on the flow of data, limits on the collection of data -- without acknowledging that under
our First Amendment doctrine right now, probably none of that passes muster."
However, Goodman pointed to the Northwest Ordinance as a possible roadmap. "Nobody would say, or maybe they did, that [the Northwest
Ordinance ] was an anti-private property rule. It was structuring the market so that more people could own property. That's what
the history of media regulation in this country has been: structuring speech markets so that more people can speak."
Disclaimer: The ProMarket blog is dedicated to discussing how competition tends to be subverted by special interests. The posts
represent the opinions of their writers, not necessarily those of the University of Chicago, the Booth School of Business, or its
faculty. For more information, please visit ProMarket
Blog Policy .
"The 2008 financial crisis was the
consequence of a loosely regulated banking system
in which power was concentrated in the hands of too limited a cast of speculators,
"
Nomi Prins tell me. "And after the crisis, the way the US government and the Federal Reserve
dealt with this corrupt and criminal banking system was to give them a subsidy."
Such strong, withering analysis is, perhaps, unexpected from someone who has held senior roles
at Wall Street finance houses such as Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs. But Prins is no ordinary
former banker.
The US author and journalist left the financial services industry in 2001. She did so, in her
own words, "partly because life was too short", and
"partly out of disgust at how
citizens everywhere had become collateral damage, and later hostages, to the banking system".
Since then, Prins has chronicled the closed and often confusing world of high finance
through the 2008 crisis and beyond.
Her writing combines deep insider knowledge with
on-the-ground reporting with sharp, searing prose. Alongside countless articles for
New York
Times
,
Forbes
and
Fortune
, she has produced six books – including
Collusion:
how central bankers rigged the world
, which has just been published.
Her main target in the new work is "quantitative easing" – described by Prins as "a
conjuring trick" in which "a central bank manufactures electronic money, then injects it into
private banks and financial markets".
Over the last decade, she tells me when we meet in
London, "under the guise of QE, central bankers have massively overstepped their traditional
mandates, directing the flow of epic sums of fabricated money, without any checks or balances,
towards the private banking sector".
Since QE began, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, "the US Federal Reserve has produced a
massive $4.5 trillion of conjured money, out of a worldwide QE total of around $21 trillion", says
Prins. The combination of ultra-low interest rates and vast monetary expansion, she explains, has
caused "speculation to rage... much as a global casino would be abuzz if everyone gambled using
everyone else's money".
Much of this new spending power, though, has remained "inside the system", with banks
shoring up their balance sheets.
"So lending to ordinary firms and households has barely
grown as a result of QE," says Prins, "nor have wages or prosperity for most of the world's
population". Instead, "the banks have gone on an asset-buying spree", she explains, getting into
her stride, "with the vast flow of QE cash from central banks to private banks ensuring endless
opportunities for market manipulation and asset bubbles – driven by government support".
Prins describes "the power grab we've seen by the US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank,
the Bank of Japan and other central banks".
Using QE, she argues, "these illusionists have
altered the nature of the financial system and orchestrated a
de facto
heist that has
enabled the most dominant banks and central bankers to run the world".
She says all this looking me straight in the eye, with the deadpan delivery, supreme confidence
and unflinching focus of the senior investment banker she was. But the words are those of an angry
and committed activist – someone who is absolutely determined to do what she can to reform global
finance, starting in her native country.
Nomi Prins deals in bold statements and fearless analysis. While often accused of hyperbole, her
deep research, financial expertise and former 'insider status' means only a fool would dismiss her.
She is just at home within academia as she is on the political front line – a regular on the
university lecture circuit, Prins was also a member of Senator Bernie Sanders' team of economic
experts, advising on central bank reform. Yet, such is her reputation that she commands a place
among those she chides – and is regularly consulted, formally and informally, by senior officials
at the Fed, the ECB and other major central banks.
Surveying the history of the response to the 2008 financial crisis, Prins tells me that explicit
bank bailouts were only a small part of the story. "First, there was the $700bn package agreed in
Congress to save the US banks that caused the crisis," she says.
"But the real bailout
was the trillions of dollars of QE produced by the Fed – a massive subsidy to banks and financial
markets, that has created an enormous bubble, a subsidy agreed by unelected officials and barely
debated or remarked upon."
After initiating QE in late 2008, the Fed then "exported the idea – and that required the
collusion of other major central banks", Prins argues. She points out that even though the Fed and
the Bank of England have currently stopped doing QE, new money amounting to hundreds of billions of
dollars a month is still being pumped out by central banks elsewhere, not least the ECB and the
Bank of Japan.
"When the asset bubble pops, the fragile financial system and the broader
economic environment could be thrown into deep depression and turmoil,"
she says.
"That's why the QE baton has been passed from the US to other nations, and why the
central banks are so desperate to collude."
I put to Prins the conventional wisdom: there was no alternative to QE, and without it, the
global banking system would have collapsed in 2008, causing untold economic and political damage.
While she accepts there was a need for immediate post-crisis action, she argues the time for
emergency measures has now long since passed. "If financial markets so much as wobble, the world's
leading central banks, between them, do more QE," she says. "The insiders maintain the status quo
of subsidies to the financial system – but there is no world war, aliens are not invading our
planet, this is totally unjustified."
Prins says that
QE has been "a massive deceit and a huge factor in driving inequality
– a dedicated effort by institutions with the ability to create money, deciding that it doesn't go
to ordinary people". While it was sold "as a massive trickle-down programme, helping the incomes of
regular households, the benefits have been focused at the very top".
Stock markets have benefitted, she acknowledges, "but a mere 10% of Americans own 85% of the
market". Prins also argues that low interest rates have harmed most Americans.
"We need
to normalise the rate environment, so ordinary people get some kind of return on their pensions and
savings,"
she says.
QE and low rates, says Prins, have also caused "a debt explosion" – as not only have governments
taken on more borrowing but financial institutions have too, keen to boost the scale of their
investments in QE-driven markets that look like a one-way bet. US government debt has soared from
$9 trillion to over $20 trillion since the financial crisis, Prins observes. "And public and
private debt combined amount to a staggering 225% of global GDP – much of it accumulated since the
financial crisis," she says.
"The next financial crisis will be sparked by a debt failure somewhere – then
this QE
bubble will pop very quickly,"
Prins predicts. "And
when the new crisis comes,
rates are already low and we have little in the way of fiscal ammunition, so mitigation will be
very tough – and it will be ordinary people who suffer the most".
In response to the financial crisis, Prins maintains it would have been far cheaper and more
effective for the state to intervene directly, providing explicit assistance to cash-strapped
householders struggling to service the distressed mortgages at the heart of the crisis. "There was
half a trillion dollars of sub-prime mortgages across the US in 2008," she recalls. "You could have
bought up these properties, or just temporarily covered the loans," she says. "That would have cost
much less than half a trillion, and would also have helped the banks by turning their junk assets
into performing loans."
Prins says the "banks and central banks together" instead concocted QE. "We've allowed a
grotesque $21 trillion global subsidy which has seen the bankers not only avoid punishment for the
huge mess they created, but then entrench their financial advantage even more."
What we need, she says, is "better regulation" – in particular, a return to the "Glass-Steagall
environment where investment banks can't leverage their balance sheets by so much and rely on
government support". Since the Depression-era separation between risky investment banking and
run-of-the-mill commercial banking was repealed by the Clinton administration in 1997, "a financial
crisis was unavoidable", she says.
"As long as the deposits of ordinary people and
companies can be used by investment bankers as fodder for reckless speculation, in the knowledge
those deposits are backed by the state, the world is at risk."
Prins is dismayed at how easily on-going QE, continuing years after the financial crisis, has
been accepted by the political and media classes. "There is joint approval across the middle of the
left-right spectrum," she says.
"The economics profession and almost all commentators
don't seem to care that this money is completely unaccountable and untracked – and has caused an
enormous bubble."
The reason, she observes, is that contemplating the end of QE is
too difficult. "The unwind will cause pain and could result in a meltdown, as the markets and the
debt mountain collapse."
In
Collusion
, Prins takes us on a whistle-stop tour of global finance, describing how
the leaders of the Banco de México tried to navigate their country's complicated relationship with
the Fed and how Brazil has led the charge in challenging the dollar's all-important "reserve
currency status".
The
book goes to China
, where we learn how Beijing is using "dark money" to upend dollar-hegemony,
helping to drive the country's ascent as a global superpower.
We read how Europe's response to the financial crisis has heightened tension between the ECB and
Germany – fuelling intra-EU resentments that have fuelled populism and help explain Brexit. Prins
describes how
Japan "leverages the rivalry between the US and China", while embarking on
"the most ambitious money-conjuring scheme to date".
But it is in the US where the bulk of the narrative is set and it is there the arguments Prins
makes will be most keenly read. The Federal Reserve has just lifted interest rates by a quarter
point, and signalled that two more increases are likely in 2018. As the world's most important
central bank continues the long, gradual march away from emergency measures, and with the ECB also
committed soon to ending QE, the warnings in this important book about extent of today's asset
price bubbles, and the role central banks have played in causing them, are about to be severely
tested.
"What we've witnessed, since 2008, is the unbridled ability of the so-called
people at the top to implement socialism for the banks,"
Prins tells me.
"If anyone had said we are going to give $21 trillion to the global banking sector, it
would never have happened – so we've had a backdoor process instead, under the pretense it would
help ordinary people."
Leaning forward for the first time, Prins ups the ante. "Well, real people don't believe that –
and they'll believe it even less as and when we have another crash, a crash off the back of ten
years of emergency measures that were supposed to fix the system."
"The issue isn't whether this money-conjuring game can continue," she says as she prepares to
leave. "The issue is that central banks have no plan B in the event of another crisis – and that's
going to create an even more massively negative view among ordinary people towards those who see
themselves as elites."
Listen to Liam Halligan's interview with Nomi Prins here:
One of her obfuscations is the concentrating on "asset bubbles" rather
than the fact that these Banksters are obtaining ownership of the worlds
real assets without having to pay for them. As if they didn't have
enough power.
Ownership of corporations (and control of them), is one
of the subjects carefully avoided by the Rotschild media machine.
There is only one group of people who it is illegal to question in a
good number of ethnic European countries.
Prins describes "the power grab we've seen by the US Federal Reserve,
the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan and other central
banks".
Replace "....the US Federal Reserve, the European Central
Bank, the Bank of Japan and other central banks" with "....the
Rothschild Crime Family" would be a more appropriate comment.
The Rothschild Crime Family own and control every central bank on
the planet except three, Iran, North Korea and Cuba, lending money at
interest to governments everywhere. Do you have debt, a home loan, a
car loan, student debt, credit card debt?! What about the debt your
Federal, State and Local governments have on behalf of you, your
children and grand-children? Just imagine that over 50% of all that
debt is owed and the interest continually paid to the Rothschild clan
and their tight knit group of international bankers. Do you feel good
about yourself still, being nothing more than a serf to them? Money
makes money, and in this case the biggest crime syndicate that will
ever exist, one that has the military of various countries continuing
their protection racket for them as well as IRS type institutions
doing their debt collecting, will never be satisfied until they have
everything!
Alternative thinking would suggest that Prins is spot on !
The reason she gets MSM 'coverage' is because she has not
revealed the true enormity of it !
The scenario's she suggests have definitely played out !
Although, she is withholding the TRUE scale of it - it's
MASSIVE !
I just received her new book "Collusion: how the central bankers rigged the
world" through special order with my library. She is by far the best writer on
central banks and the financial crisis. Her "It Takes a Pillage" is superb and
easily followed. The problem is, hardly anyone outside of the few who care (or
know) read it.
A 1950s outlook repeated for 6 books. We are not going anywhere near 20th Century
anything and this is populist. Glass-Steagall is DEAD but promoting its return
sells!
Now the money the Fed creates is "Outside Money" injected to the banking
system which creates the "Inside Money" that usually finances the economy. The
INTENTION of the "Outside Money" being injected into the banking system is to
prevent the banking system from dying after which it would no longer be able to
create the "Inside Money" you borrow.
The Fed is NOT going to send individual citizens their mortgage payments. This
is also populist tripe.
If this were to be done Congress would have to legislate it and the Fed would
assist in arranging the financing for such a deficit.
The Congress DOES send trillions to all the people through various transfer
and entitlement programs and this coming year will be 2.8T from the federal level
alone as well as arranging all the student and mortgage loans.
As long as it is taken to be entertainment any of this is fine. Oh yeah, NO
GOLD Standard, Bimetal money, or any sort of commodity currency EVER again.
Today, June 16, is the 85th anniversary of the signing of the Banking Act of 1933, otherwise known as the Glass Steagall Act.
When President Franklin Roosevelt signed Glass Steagall into law, he set off a 66 year epoch of relatively sound banking, during
which time there was no big financial crash, as occurred in 1929 and again, after Glass Steagall's repeal, in 2008. Under Glass Steagall,
commercial depository banks were totally separated from investment banks. Later, insurance companies were also cut off from any ties
to commercial banks. During the same wave of early New Deal legislation, the Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was
established, insuring commercial bank deposits and successfully deterring bank panics.
The repeal of Glass Steagall was a long-standing priority for Wall Street. In 1984, JP Morgan Bank launched an internal study
on how to repeal Glass Steagall. That study, "Rethinking Glass Steagall," proposed a war of attrition against the principle of complete
bank separation. The war was launched in 1987, with the appointment of Alan Greenspan as the new Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Greenspan had been a partner at JP Morgan and had chaired the study group which devised the war plan against Glass Steagall. As Fed
Chairman, Greenspan used his discretionary powers to increase the amount that commercial banks to lend to investment institutions.
By the mid-1990s, enforcement of Glass Steagall had eroded. Citibank at that point moved to purchase both an investment bank and
an insurance company, in violation of Glass Steagall restrictions. That set the clock going to a two-year deadline. Citi had to either
divest of the purchases or Glass Steagall had to be repealed.
Wall Street poured $300 million into a lobbying campaign to kill Glass Steagall. In 1999, both Houses of Congress passed the Gramm
Leach Bliley bill, killing Glass Steagall. For the first time in 66 years, commercial banks could merge with investment banks and
insurance companies. It was only a matter of time before the investment banking divisions devoured the commercial bank deposits and
directed them into a speculative binge beyond all previous financial bubbles. When Lehman Brothers went under in 2008, the system
crashedEnemies of Glass Steagall argued that Lehman Brothers was not a commercial bank and so the repeal of Glass Steagall had no
causal relationship with the financial crisis. Not so. It was the repeal of Glass Steagall that allowed commercial banks to pour
money into the gambling casino--including into Lehman BrothersAn article today in The Guardian by US correspondent Ganesh Sitaraman
noted that there is renewed interest in Glass Steagall today--across the political spectrum. He noted that progressive Democrats
have been pushing reinstating of Glass Steagall for years. It was included in the Republican Party platform in 2016. That is just
the tip of the iceberg. There are bills to reinstate Glass Steagall in both Houses of Congress and they are bipartisan bills. Even
candidate Donald Trump called for the reinstatement of Glass Steagall, before he was gagged by Wall Street cabinet officials like
Steven Mnuchin and Gary CohenThe IMF, the Bank for International Settlements, the Federal Reserve and Bloomberg News are all warning
that we are headed for another major financial "correction" sometime soon. They point to the consequences of a decade of post-2008
quantitative easing and zero interest rates, which led to a 63 percent jump in corporate bonds. The median bond rating today is BBB-
just one rung above junk bond status, and S&P Global estimates that more than 25 percent of all corporations can be categorized as
"zombies" because the amount they must spend servicing their corporate debt is greater than their cash flow.
There is a growing consensus that we are again headed for a big financial shock. Wouldn't it be wise to move to insulate the commercial
banking sector from another fiasco before the next crisis? Are the White House and Congress ready to act or are we heading blindly
to a replay of 2008?
Sirs;
The 'conventional' wisdom is that Franklin Roosevelt saved Capitalism from itself in the 1930s'. Glass Steagall was a big part
of that 'intervention' to save the self destructive system. When the financial sector managed to have the Glass Steagall law
removed, it might as well have said, like any addict; "I can control myself. I can stop any time I want." Any of us who have
had dealings with addictive personalities knows the folly of this claim. Well, absent Glass Steagall, the financial sector
tried to commit suicide in 2007-2008. The Fed and others managed to revive the moribund sector through QE to infinity. Now
it's going to happen again. This time, let the banks die. If you want, apply true capitalism and replace the errant institutions
with new ones. Then regulate the new actors. Keep the bottle out of the addicts reach.
I find Harper's account very clear and accurate as someone who paid close attention (watched in horror) from the time Clinton
signed the damned thing (Gramm Leach Bliley) till the inevitable taxpayer bailout of our worldwide commercial economy by indemnifying
the investment banks against their unlimited greedy speculative depredations.
The key point is that without commercial banking, business activity is not possible and would essentially cease. If, on
the other hand, all investment banking, no matter how big, were to blow up, collapse, and its minions be hunted down by wolves,
the world would feel the shock but soon turn to other forms of capital formation.
However, without Glass Steagall, commercial banks and investment banks become inextricably intertwined, and then "let the
banks fail" kills both the cancer and the patient. "Too big to fail" is a misnomer; it's not the size but the function that
matters, and until commercial banks (and insurers) are again separated from investment banking, the investment banksters have
us by the short ones, with a knife to our throat and a suicide vest around our families.
I got this from Wikipedia, does anybody know if it is correct?
n 1977, Greenspan obtained a Ph.D. in economics from New York University. His dissertation is not available from the university[17]
since it was removed at Greenspan's request in 1987, when he became Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. In April 2008, however,
Barron's obtained a copy and notes that it includes "a discussion of soaring housing prices and their effect on consumer spending;
it even anticipates a bursting housing bubble".[18
Harper, do you have any references for assertions such as the JPM internal study, the amount spent on lobbying and Greenspan's
role? It's not that I find them implausible. Just the opposite, in fact. But solid references help in convincing others.
The root is neoliberal government that came to power in 2015
Notable quotes:
"... Why is any of this still "surprising" ..."
"... Economist Ha Joon Chang popularized the term "ladder kicking" to describe the way in which most developed countries used tariffs and trade restrictions to ascent to the top but are all for "free trade" now. ..."
"... Once again, so long as "Original Sin" is a reality, there is little hope. Keynes' BANCOR was the idea to begin to fix this, but short of some other global currency initiative, we're left to the International Finance Vultures as the primary arbiters of what's possible. ..."
Thanks for the link. I will be spending some time thinking of what Argentina would best
employ as best practices from where it is.
Would they be best off if they stopped issuing such high paying bonds? Should they pay them
all off and stop with it. It does appear to me that issuing bond after bond is one of the
single most dangerous things you can do.
It would appear to me to be a superior practice to sell what you produce for the best price
you can get on the open markets and dictate the value of your currency.
I'll have to do some more study here.
Again, thanks for the link.
You're uttering the discourse of the most recalcitrant neo-liberal cum
austerity-fundamentalists around.
The US doesn't tax soybean exports. Argentina needs to maximize its exports to earn
foreign exchange.'
it's misleading to say the least to draw a comparison between how the US handles soybean
exports and Argentina does it. They're around a quarter of the latter's exports, barely a
hundredth of the latter's.
The US will never have forex issues, Argentina does have them, and they are very serious.
You make it as if simply exporting commodities will fill the country's economy with USD,
while in truth those dollars will be neatly parked in tax heavens. Eliminating tax and
controls over Argentina's biggest exports -agricultural commodities- is in practice as if
these commodities were produced not in this country but in some foreign territory over which
only the very few who hold most of the land are sovereign. Which is what the current
administration has been doing for the past two years.
You also make it as if the current situation where the value of the peso is given over
completely to whatever short-term speculators feel like doing with it whenever LEBACs are due
is more desirable than the capital controls imposed by the previous government. These
prevented the hurtful rapid rise we're seeing in the exchange rate and reduced the negative
consequences of the fiscal deficit thus allowing significant investment in and expansion of
the real economy.
Addressing the fiscal deficit through increased value added and income tax is something
that clearly benefits the owner over the working class and depresses private consumption. I
can only sarcastically wonder who would want such a thing.
I don't feel the need or the duty to defend the previous government, but victimization of
the Sociedad Rural is something I just lack the words to condemn strongly enough
Argentina is probably the most self sufficient country on earth. It has everything,
fertile land that produces an abundance of wheat, barley, oats, rye, wine grapes. As well as
oil, gas. uranium, silver, gold, lead, copper, zinc. Foreigners are well aware of the wealth
in Argentina and are more than willing to lend to Argentinian governments and companies. This
is why Cristina Kirchner refused to give in to the US vulture funds as it dissuaded
foreigners from believing that reckless lending would always be rewarded. Macri ponied up,
restarting the old familiar economic doom cycle. As always its the old dog for the long road
and the pup for the puddle. Macri is now in a place that he chose, the puddle. As long as
foreig lenders remain reckless Argentina will remain mired in the mud, well short of its
potential. I was last there in 2008 when the country was booming. When I heard of Macri's
plan to pay the vulture funds I knew they were headed for disaster. This is just the
beginning.
Those "foreign lenders" can't be called "reckless." Some, maybe most among them always
seem to profit from the looting, whether by "bailouts" or "backstops" from governments like
the US that for "geopolitical reasons" facilitate that lending, or by extortion after the
first-round lenders (who know the risks, of course -- they are big boys and girls after all)
have been forestalled.
Call them "wreckers," maybe. Like early denizens of the Florida Keys, and other places,
who set fires or put up lamps that resembled lighthouses to lure passing ships onto the sands
and rocks where their cargoes and the valuables of their drowned passengers and crews could
be stripped.
Why is any of this still "surprising" to anyone?! Most countries in the world
(non G7/G8) are forced to go into foreign debt in order to pursue their "development"
initiatives. They are told they can export themselves out of trouble but the "free
trade" (more like unfair trade!) mantra puts them at a distinct disadvantage –
"unequal
exchange" was the term Marx used for it.
Economist Ha Joon Chang popularized the term
"ladder kicking" to describe the way in which most developed countries used tariffs and
trade restrictions to ascent to the top but are all for "free trade" now.
Once again, so long as "Original Sin" is a reality, there is little
hope. Keynes' BANCOR was
the idea to begin to fix this, but short of some other global currency initiative, we're left
to the International Finance Vultures as the primary arbiters of what's possible.
I am copying in the first 2 that show the economic clarity he brings to the subject and make
my point
Paul Krugman
It's normal to feel that people you disagree with politically are offering bad solutions to our
problems. But Trump has brought something new: his policy agenda is almost entirely directed at
problems we don't have -- problems that exist only in his warped imagination 1/
Paul Krugman
These include:
- A wave of violent crime by undocumented immigrants
- Massive illegal voting by the same
- Massive Canadian tariffs against US goods
- Conspiracy by the Elders of Zion to take over the world
OK, he hasn't actually gone after point #4, but give him time 2/
End of Paul Krugman tweet quote
So why did Krugman write about the Elders of Zion (What does he know and when did he find
out?..grin) and not about the proclivities of global private finance?.....that pays him nicely
to be part of propaganda central
Neoliberals are a flavor of Trotskyites and they will reach any depths to hang on to power.
Notable quotes:
"... Just as conservative Christian theology provides an excuse for sexism and homophobia, neoliberal language allows powerful groups to package their personal preferences as national interests – systematically cutting spending on their enemies and giving money to their friends. ..."
"... Nothing short of a grass roots campaign (such as that waged by GetUp!) will get rid for us of these modern let-them-eat-cake parasites who consider their divine duty to lord over us. ..."
Just as conservative Christian theology provides an excuse for sexism and homophobia, neoliberal language allows powerful
groups to package their personal preferences as national interests – systematically cutting spending on their enemies and giving
money to their friends.
And when the conservative "Christians" form a neoliberal government, the results are toxic for all, except themselves and their
coterie.
Nothing short of a grass roots campaign (such as that waged by GetUp!) will get rid for us of these modern let-them-eat-cake
parasites who consider their divine duty to lord over us.
Economics has a lot of similarities with Theology.
People can believe whatever interpretation fits with their own indoctrination.
The difference being there is a truth to economics that seems to be invisible to most people,
major economists included.
Your post highlights some of the stark realities that people just refuse to accept for some
inexplicable reason.
Maybe the better economic managers will come to the rescue or maybe there will be a
collective awakening when in a moment of clarity we start to realise how badly we have been
conned.
Half the population prefers a politics that is racist and unethical, that demonises the poor
and idolises the rich, that eschews community and embraces amoral individuality. These people
don't care about the economic inconsistencies of neo-liberalism, they are far more attracted
to the divisive societal aspects of free market fundamentalism.
Like Joe Hockey, Rinehart saw the problem of inequality as having more to do with the
character of the poor than with the rules of the game:
They don't "see" it this way. They just say they see it this way to perpetuate that
inequality. They know that their wealth depends on the labour of the other 95-99%.
To keep us all working and voting for their lackeys, they make promises of wealth if you
are a persistent hard worker, never mentioning that the entire game depends on only a tiny
minority ever reaching the top. No, the real people holding them back are those who don't
work hard. Who don't contribute to the game. They're the ones to blame for why you're not
levelling up. The true scapegoats.
Victim blaming is a classic neo-con tactic, they seek to deflect from the impact of their
heartless policies by demonising the victims, from the unemployed and those stuck in the
welfare cycle to refugees trapped in offshore detention, indefinitely . We've all seen how
appalling their commentary can get, from Abbott and Hockey's "lifters and leaners" to Gina
Mineheart's "two dollars a day" & "spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising"
they show just how out touch they are. They honestly believe that people can lift themselves
out of poverty if only they "spent more time working", ignoring the fact that many are
working two jobs just to stay ahead.
Seems that on planet RWNJ there are more than 24 hours in a day..
Half the population need welfare to survive.
1% have 90% of all the toys in the sandpit and won't share. They feel that they are entitled
to all the toys.
This piece is well worth the reading particularly in light of the trashing of society's
values we see played out in Trump's America. However, the writer's definition of
"ideology " as a "system of ideas and ideals" even though it accords with the
OED's, fails to take into account the current pernicious influence of the ideologue who
distorts "ideology" into the "rationalisation of a suppression" as Joseph Dunne
noted in his book, " Back to the Rough Ground" .
This is the most apt description of the modus operandi of today's neoliberalists - the
justifying of their project to maximise wealth accumulation in their own self-interest by
promoting the propaganda that we are powerless cogs in the machine of the
economy , slaves to the whim of the omnipotent market, rather than active
agents who wish to contribute to a flourishing society .
Neoliberalism idealises competition against each other to ensure the
rights of the few, by suppressing our capacity to take
responsibility together through cooperation and collaboration with each
other.
This classic divide and conquer tactic will prevail only as long as we permit
it.
I'm a conservative and I have an good economics degree. I have to say though that I don't
understand neoliberalism at all.
As a example, when I was doing economics it was made very clear to me that natural
monopolies (such as electricity and water) cannot be made into a competitive market (rather
like trying to put lipstick on a pig). Similarly oligopolies introduce opportunities for
price manipulation (e.g. the banks). The neoliberal mantra that "markets are always right" is
just rubbish. Markets work well only when certain criteria are met.
Secondly, the right of workers to collectively bargain is fundamental to a well
functioning market economy. Labour is one of the inputs to production and the workers have a
right to a proper return on their labour. Individual workers have no real bargaining power
and can only act collectively through unions.
Finally, the related casualisation of the workforce is a disaster for workers and the
long-term interests of the economy. The stagnation of wages (and inflation) is one of the
products of this strong trend to casualisation (my blood boils when I hear of examples of
wage theft affecting vulnerable workers).
Income inequality is a product of a capitalist system. However, when the distribution of
wealth becomes very badly skewed (such as in the USA) then the political system starts to
break down. Trump was a beneficiary of this flawed income distribution. All Hillary Clinton
was promising was "more of the same". In short, Bernie Sanders was right.
Walter Schadel, in his book, The Great Leveler (see below), points to the role of income
inequality in driving revolutions and disruptions. There are lessons in this book for our
current crop of politicians both on the left and the right.
Wow! Richard Denniss says it like it is, neatly summing up "the big con".
I believe Australia is being sold from under our feet. The big asset-strip is on. Why are
we not benefiting from the mining boom? The answer lies in the way Rinehart companies and
others like hers have been permitted to use Singapore or other low-taxing countries to
minimise taxes. That these large companies should have the gall to demand large tax cuts as
well is preposterous.
When headlines indulge in fear-mongering about China, why is angst directed at Dastyari
for taking a relatively small donation, whilst at the same time the Australian government has
approved a joint purchase of large swathes of the Australian outback by Rinehart and Chinese
interests? Have we already forgotten the Darwin port deal? Why were Robb, Bishop and the
Liberal Party allowed to benefit from deals or large donations from "Chinese interests"? Yet
Bob Carr is being slammed for trying over many years to develop a more harmonious
relationship with China?
Australians have told federal and state governments that they hate privatisation. Not
content with selling off profitable businesses such as Medibank Private, the Liberal/National
Party federal government is privatising its services. Detention centres and prisons acted as
a stalking-horse for the creeping privatisation of jobs. Politicians assume most voters don't
notice or care when government jobs in those sectors are privatised, but other government
departments are following suit.
By permitting the Future Fund and superannuation funds to invest in tax havens, the
federal government has opened the door to a growing trend. If my super fund uses the Cayman
Island tax haven, it is easier to justify everyone else from the PM down to evade Australian
taxes as well. More insidiously, tax havens make it easier to cheat creditors in bankruptcy
cases, launder dirty money, break trade sanctions and much more. We aren't even aware of how
these may be playing out behind closed doors in our name. The problem with allowing Rinehart
to use Singapore or Turnbull to use the Cayman Island is that other companies and individuals
will increasingly Do so, and in the end, everyone is doing it. And when will we take note of
cryptocurrencies and how they can act like tax havens?
Our participation in wars not of our own making is also having dire results. Think of all
the money spent and lives of servicemen destroyed by serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Imagine
if that money had instead been invested wisely in defence capabilities. And yet there we are,
interfering in the South China Sea, trying to provoke China at Trump's behest, and it is not
clear whether the Phillipines wants us there now anyway. And all the while, the cost of our
participation in war games is crippling our ability to acquire defence assets, making us more
reliant on the US.
The banking enquiry has only scratched the surface of how voters are being ripped off with
impunity. There are growing demands that the superannuation industry, in particular retail
funds, be subject to greater transparency and regulation. Yet Turnbull, Cash and colleagues
prefer to direct their scorn at industry funds, simply because they are controlled by
workers, via their unions.
We can sense "the big con" is all around us. We can almost smell it, so pungent is the air
of exploitation, corruption and fraud. Hopefully Denniss will join others in focussing us
more clearly on how we are being cheated of our birthright.
Despite the huge changes in communication in the last several decades
and the ever increasing levels of education in our society, politics have
failed to engage the vast majority and that cohort of the cynical, the alienated,
the disinterested, the lazy, the simply care less continues to grow.
In the last decade the only cause that evoked passion and engaged a larger
number, finally forcing our elected members to act was same sex marriage
.....a crescendo that took years to generate.
With the complicity of our media and the decline of that part of education
that teaches analysis, social psychology and political philosophy (let alone
teaches about basic political structures and mechanisms) our level of disengagement
from the political process appears to be at an all time high. The performance
of our legislators has become increasingly unaccountable and purely self interested
.... we have re-created the "political class" of pre-war times where alienation
was based on a lack of education and awareness and a sense of inferiority and
powerlessness DESPITE our vastly improved communication, access to information
and educational standards (not to mention affluence).
Basically, we have "dumbed down" to the extent where passion and ideology in
politics is now the preserve of fewer and fewer. In a democracy this trend is of
massive concern and a threat to its sustainability.... it also completely suits those
that are focused on concentrating power and wealth... the more that don't give
a toss the less likely you are to be encumbered by limitations, social considerations,
ethics and morality.
Until we re-engage far larger numbers into the political process, raise the levels
of awareness of political thought and choices, stop dumbing down and re-inject
some broader passion and participation into our political processes then vested
interests will continue to dominate.....and democracy will become increasingly
undemocratic !
he first page of Tim Winton's new essay collection,
The Boy Behind the Curtain
, sets a disturbing scene. A 13-year-old boy stands at the window of a suburban
street, behind a terylene curtain, training a rifle on passersby.
"He was a fraught little thing," says Winton
of that boy – the boy he used to be. "I feel related to him but I'm no longer completely him, thank god."
The passage opens a surprisingly intimate essay about the role of guns in Australian life, setting the tone for
a collection being billed as Winton's most personal yet.
In spite of his inclination for solitude, Winton has spent much of his life in the spotlight. His first novel,
An Open Swimmer, catapulted him into the public eye when it won the Vogel literary award in 1981, but it was his
1991 novel, Cloudstreet, that cemented his place in Australian letters. Winton has won the Miles Franklin award
four times and been shortlisted twice for the Booker. His books have been adapted for film, TV and
even opera
.
ss="rich-link">
Island Home by Tim Winton review – a love song to Australia and a cry to
save it
Read more
The contradictions of having such a high-profile career while working in a quintessentially solitary artform
are not lost on him. "I spend all day in a room with people who don't exist, and I'm not thinking about any public
– but once the thing's done it goes out there and it has a public life over which I have no, or very little,
control," he says.
On one reading, the boy with the rifle lurking out of sight, watching the world go by, could be a metaphor for
the life of a reclusive writer. But Winton is quick to distinguish himself from such a reading. "I wouldn't like
to see myself as somebody who was just cruelly observing the world behind the terylene curtain of art."
For Winton, the perceived lives of other writers always seemed completely unrelated to his own experience. "I
grew up with a kind of modernist romantic idea of the writer as some kind of high priest, someone who saw
themselves as separate and better, which I now find a bit repellent," he says. "I think that was something that
was sold to us at school and certainly at university that writers were somehow aloof from the ordinary business
of life; they didn't have to abide by the same rules as other people. The worse their behaviour off the page, the
more we were supposed to cheer them on. Once I woke up to that idea as a teenager, I think I consciously resisted
it."
Winton's own background was characterised by a working class sensibility and evangelical religion. His parents
converted to the Church of Christ when he was a small boy, the circumstances and his experiences of which form the
basis of a number of the previously unpublished essays in The Boy Behind the Curtain. As a result, when he finally
did start writing, it was with a particularly industrious work ethic.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Tim Winton: 'There wasn't a lot of romance in my view of what writing was about.' Photograph: Hank Kordas
"I approached it like I was a tradesperson," he says. "It didn't necessarily involve FM radio played very
loudly on a worksite; it didn't always require plumbers' crack or a hard hat and there was certainly no
catcalling, but for the rest of it I went a different route. There wasn't a lot of romance in my view of what
writing was about."
ss="rich-link">
A fish called Tim Winton: scientists name new species after novelist
Read more
Yet it was finding words, what Winton calls "the enormous luxury of language", that took him from being a
13-year-old boy who watched strangers through the eye of a rifle – a boy who was "obviously insecure and feeling
threatened and probably not quite one with the world" – to a well-adjusted adult.
The "emotional infancy of men" has a lot to answer for, he says, suggesting that it's something society would
do well to pay more attention to in its early stages. "The lumpiness and surly silence of boys is not something
we're sufficiently interested in. They're not sufficiently attractive to us until they become victims or dangerous
brutes and bullies."
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
I think it's a mistake to think someone who doesn't say much doesn't have strong
feelings
Tim Winton
Conflicted masculinity is recurring theme throughout Winton's fiction, and his characters often suffer as a
result of their inability to articulate their feelings. "I think it's a mistake to think someone who doesn't say
much doesn't have strong feelings," he says. "I think we stifle people's expression or we ignore people's signals
of wanting to express things at our peril."
The distinct tenor of Winton's prose, a lyricism which manages to turn even the Australian vernacular into a
kind of rough poetry, lends itself to the intimacy of the personal essay. The Boy Behind the Curtain contains a
number of vignettes that reflect the imagery and landscape that characterises his fiction: hot bitumen roads
through the desert; the churning ocean.
But there is also a clear political streak to Winton's nonfiction, and the inclusion of a number of more direct
essays in this collection mean it's difficult to collapse the work under the category of memoir. Stones for Bread,
for example, calls for a return to empathy and humanity in Australia's approach to asylum seekers. The Battle for
Ningaloo Reef is a clear-eyed account of the activism that prevented a major commercial development from
destroying a stretch of the Western Australian coastline. And Using the C-Word concerns that other dirty word that
Winton believes we are avoiding: class.
"I think there are people talking about class but they're having to do that against the flow," Winton says.
"We're living in a dispensation that is endlessly reinforcing the idea that we are not citizens but economic
players. And under that dispensation it's in nobody's interest, especially those in power, to encourage or foster
the idea that there's any class difference."
The market doesn't care about people, Winton argues, and neither is there any genius in it. "There's no
invisible hand," he says. "And if there is one, it's scratching its arse."
It's clear to Winton that neoliberalism is failing, but not without casualties, two of which are very close to
his heart: the arts and the environment.
"People in the arts are basically paying the price for this new regime where we pay no tax and where we get
less public service and more privatised service," he says. "The arts are last on, first off in people's minds and
I think that's not just sad, it's corrosive. They're just seen as fluff, as fripperies, as indulgence, as add-ons
and luxury. And I don't think the arts are luxury; I think they're fundamental to civilisation. It's just that
under our current dispensation, civilisation is not the point; civilisation is something that commerce has to
negotiate and traduce if necessary."
Winton is one of a number of high-profile critics of the Productivity Commission's proposals to allow
the parallel importation of books
, and a signatory to petitions opposing
funding cuts to the Australia Council
. But he has also been a grassroots activist in the area of marine
conservation for over 15 years.
"I don't know if I'm an activist writer or just a writer who has an activist life on the side," he says.
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
I don't know if I'm an activist writer or just a writer who has an activist life
on the side
Tim Winton
Years of lobbying by conservation groups and the general public contributed to the Labor government
announcement in 2012 of
42 marine reserves in Australian waters
, including over the entire Coral Sea. The Abbott government, however,
implemented a review which, in September this year, recommended
significantly scaling back those reservations
. It was, says Winton, an act of cowardice.
"The Abbott review was basically all about applying inertia to imminent progress," Winton says. "We've gone
from world leaders [in conservation] to being too frightened to lead."
When asked what role writing fiction plays in his activist work, Winton says it comes back to the idea of
"keeping people's imaginations awake".
"Imagination is the fundamental virtue of civilisation. If people can't imagine then they can't live an ethical
life."
You know how missionaries used to run around the globe forcing everyone to be a Christian?
And in the process, they destroyed native cultures and traditions?
Well, the same thing is happening today with Western "teen culture." It is being exported
around the world with disastrous effects.
Manufacturing Adolescence
Preindustrial societies mostly exhibit a continuum from childhood to adulthood. There is
generally no random cut off age where suddenly teens are given rights and expected to become
adults. Children seamlessly and gradually integrate into adulthood, with puberty rites being
the only major benchmark.
These societies were
"free-range parenting" before it was cool. Even toddlers have a large degree of autonomy.
The child is allowed to explore, and the mother provides the nurturing, feeding, and love at
the child's initiation. Young children participate in the work of their parents and elders and
interact and learn from people of all ages.
Children are raised from infancy alongside adults, instead of being segregated into peer
groups of the same age. They slowly learn from adults and take on more responsibilities by
emulating what they see.
What do kids see in the USA? A bunch of other kids with whom they have been grouped by
government and industry working in tandem . Instead of emulating adults, they act like
their peers. They want to dress the same, impress others with their technology, and keep up
with the same tv shows.
This creates an artificial sub-culture based on age. And it creates a new market.
As of 2011, teens spend over $200 billion
per year . Disney and all its many subsidiaries bring in about $45 billion a year. It is
not surprising that these industries now spend several billion dollars each year advertising to
teenagers. And the most effective form of advertising is to create a sub-culture through which
to sell products.
You can trace the roots of this phenomenon way back to the industrial revolution when social
structures got a big shakeup. Kids worked less alongside adults in family work and
apprenticeships. Instead, they were shipped off to compulsory public schools. They were grouped
by age and sex, and "educated" to be factory workers.
By contrasting Western adolescence with people of the same age in societies that are just
recently modernizing, we see that "teen turmoil" is not a natural phenomenon or an issue of
hormones. It has been created by Western culture and is now infecting industrializing
societies.
A similar story has played out for Kenyans, Moroccans, Australian aborigines, Canadian
Inuits, and many other preindustrial societies recently integrated into Western culture. Their
ways of life led to few social problems like unwed pregnancy, the breakdown of the family, drug
use, depression, violence, and general teenage angst and rebellious destructive behavior. But
that changed upon the introduction of Western television, schooling, and teen culture.
What is it that preindustrial teens are seeing on those television programs? Answer: teens
being treated like, and behaving like, irresponsible children.
When teens in preindustrial society are forced to attend Western-style schools, how are
they affected? Answer: they're cut off from adults and from the centrality of adult culture;
they're prevented from working, or at least making work the center of their lives; they
become controlled by adults instead of part of adult life; teens, rather than adults, become
their role models.
When Western mechanisms delay marriage, what is the outcome? Answer: because marriage is
the hallmark of adulthood in virtually all cultures, the delay of marriage also means the
delay of adulthood. It's no coincidence that Tom Smith's recent survey showed that Americans
now think adulthood begins at age twenty-six; the median age for first marriages in the
United States is now 26.8.
Pros and Cons of Western Culture
This is not a pro-tribalism post. I am absolutely not saying that society was better off in
a pre-industrial age. This is not a black or white issue. It is not like we have to choose
between being ignorantly blissful hunter-gatherers or isolated bitter consumer-robots.
Many cultures have benefited from industrialization in that the standard of living has
increased. But industrialization does not have to be imported 20th-century style. Modernization
can be introduced without causing the collapse of the old ways of life, which kept social
problems to a minimum.
We have the ability to see both extremes, isolate the biggest detrimental factors, and
mitigate them.
While the issues are all integrated, the main three problems are:
Exporting
Hollywood around the globe is another major problem. Teens are indoctrinated with the
creepy Hollywood executives' ideas of what it means to be a teen. They are sold sex, drugs, and
irresponsibility as fun, on the silver screen. And of course, there are plenty of real-world
products that they can buy to fast-track their emulation of the TV stars.
And finally, like it or not, families are a historically effective regulator of social
behaviors.
When it comes to teens around the world, just what kinds of practices and problems are we
exporting? The answer, it seems, is crime, ennui, anger, premarital sex, pregnancy, abortion,
drug and alcohol abuse, and family conflict. Consider just one of our more subtle exports:
according to a recent book on teens by psychologists Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Barbara
Schneider, American teens are almost completely isolated from adults . Teens typically spend
more than thirty-five hours per week surrounded by their peers in school and an additional
thirty-five hours per week with peers outside of school. That's two-thirds of their waking
hours. This is, according to the researchers, twelve more hours per week than teens in other
industrialized nations such as Italy and South Korea spend together, and it is probably sixty
hours a week more than teens spend together in many preindustrial societies.
Many American teens–perhaps half or more–also grow up with little access to
their father, and "for those lucky enough to have a father, the average teenager now spends
less than half an hour a week alone with his or her father." Half of this time is spent
watching television, "a situation that does not readily lend itself to quality parent-child
interactions." Father-teen interactions in the United States are certainly "not enough to
transmit the knowledge, values, attitudes, and skills that adult males should pass on to
their children." The child-adult continuum about which Jean Liedloff wrote is almost
completely absent in the united states, and we're sending our broken model of family life to
each and every village on earth.
Through our films, television programs, laws, religious beliefs, and schooling and
marriage practices, we're exporting a wide range of mechanisms that extend childhood well
past puberty and that isolate teens from adults. We're creating prolonged, turbulent,
Western-style adolescence, with all its inherent problems. We're creating generation gaps and
family conflicts where none existed before. And because we ourselves have no idea how to deal
with those problems, we're offering no solutions to the cultures we're corrupting.
Sure, pre-industrial cultures have their weak points, but so does the new way of life. You
can't objectively say one is better without specifically defining what makes it better.
Is increased teen depression and suicide worth having access to cell phones and internet? Is
increased violence and alcohol abuse worth an overall extended lifespan because of modern
medicine?
Luckily, we don't have to choose.
You can modernize without Westernizing. The three main contributors to the torment of
adolescence, and all the social problems which accompany them, are not necessary factors of
modernization.
I mentioned
"free range parenting" earlier. It is catching on in America. In a global world with more
information at our fingertips than ever before, we can cherry pick the best parts of each
culture, and apply those lessons to the modern world.
We don't have to live in a tribal-commune with no access to modern technology in order to
give young children autonomy to roam and explore the world.
We don't have to hunt in loin clothes in order to impart fatherly wisdom to our sons and
daughters.
But we may have to reorganize our lives and get our priorities straight.
Taking Action
If you've read my articles before, you know that I am not a big fan of "top-down" solutions.
That is, the best way to deal with something is on a grassroots, individual level. Trying to
change a whole society is difficult and not at all guaranteed to succeed. If it does, you have
to guard the progress against undoing.
Better to make the changes at the individual level, where you don't have to ask permission
or get a majority to agree.
Clearly, some broad reforms would help the situation. It is not about the government "doing
something" about the problem, it is about the government undoing some of the harm they have
caused.
For instance,
abolishing public schools, or at very least compulsory schooling would be a good start.
Since that probably won't happen anytime soon, parents can homeschool, send their kids to
alternative schools, or team up with friends and neighbors to form a co-op arrangement for
education.
Removing age-based restrictions on rights, or at least moving to a competency-based model of
gaining rights and privileges would also help. Again, petitioning the governing is mostly a
waste of time. Better to work with the freedoms you can give your kids. So they still can't
drive until 16, but at least they can cut their hair how they want, and maybe even have a glass
of wine with dinner.
But as with most problems, the largest barriers to improvement are in our heads.
Why not give your kids freedom from an early age? Why not let them participate in household
work from an early age? Hell, why not let them participate in your career if they are into
it?
The cool thing is that the
modern economy seems to be reorganizing to accommodate this way of life, without
sacrificing modern comforts and efficiencies.
It is easier than ever to work from home. Imagine a setting where mom and dad do their work
while the kids independently learn, or work on easier tasks. Older kids–neighbors or
family members or even a tutor–teach the younger kids. Certain work tasks and household
chores can be done together as a family, as many hands make light work.
The whole point of this method of parenting is that you offer a continuum from childhood to
adulthood.
And without even noticing it, life lessons, love, and kinship will be passed on. You don't
have to sit a kid down at a desk to teach them how to become an adult. If you interact with
them daily, they will learn from you. You just have to allow them to participate and encourage
them to pursue whatever they get excited about.
If you can't teach it to them, the internet can.
For some parents, this might sound like a disaster attempting to work from home while
teaching kids. But it is the transition that is difficult. Once children understand the new
structure of freedom, they will occupy themselves. They will learn more and be more
independent. And when they do come to you with a question or problem, it will be a rewarding
experience for everyone to work through it.
Of course for kids and teens unaccustomed to freedom, an immediate withdrawal of authority
could have disastrous consequences. Think about the 18-year-olds with strict parents who go off
to college and go crazy with parties and alcohol. But you can gradually give your child more
freedom whatever their age. Just be honest and upfront about what you are doing and why.
The issue of extended childhood, manufactured adolescence, and the harms of teen culture are
missing from most public debates.
School shootings,
teen suicide , and low-achieving youth are products of the artificial extension of
childhood, the
oppression that teens face . But with this issue, is it easy for individuals to take
control of the situation, and refuse to be part of the problem. You can solve these problems
for your family in one generation.
You don't have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and
brainwashed peers.
When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:
How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.
This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of
your dreams. It's not as hard as you think
Largely unbeknownst to the general public, executives and top journalists of almost all
major US news outlets have long been members of the influential Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR) .
Established in 1921 as a private, bipartisan organization to
"awaken America to its worldwide responsibilities" , the CFR and its close to 5000 elite
members have for decades shaped U.S. foreign policy and public discourse about it. As a
well-known Council member once explained , the goal
has indeed been to establish a global Empire, albeit a "benevolent" one.
Based on official membership rosters, the following illustration for the first time depicts
the extensive media network of the CFR and its two main international affiliate organizations :
the Bilderberg Group (covering mainly the U.S. and Europe) and the Trilateral Commission
(covering North America, Europe and East Asia), both established by Council leaders to
foster elite cooperation at the international level.
In a column entitled
"Ruling Class Journalists" , former Washington Post senior editor and ombudsman Richard
Harwood once described the Council and its members approvingly as "the nearest thing we have to
a ruling establishment in the United States".
Harwood continued:
"The membership of these journalists in the Council, however they may think of themselves,
is an acknowledgment of their active and important role in public affairs and of their
ascension into the American ruling class. They do not merely analyze and interpret foreign
policy for the United States; they help make it.
They are part of that establishment whether they like it or not, sharing most of its
values and world views ."
However, media personalities constitute only about five percent of the overall CFR network.
As the following illustration shows, key members of the private Council on Foreign Relations
have included:
several U.S. Presidents and Vice Presidents of both parties;
almost all Secretaries of State, Defense, and the Treasury;
many high-ranking commanders of the U.S. military and NATO;
almost all National Security Advisors, CIA Directors, Ambassadors to the U.N., Chairs of
the Federal Reserve, Presidents of the World Bank, and Directors of the National Economic
Council;
some of the most influential Members of Congress (notably in foreign & security
policy matters);
many top jounalists, media executives, and entertainment industry directors;
many prominent academics, especially in key fields such as Economics, International
Relations, Political Science, History, and Journalism;
many top executives of Wall Street, policy think tanks, universities, and NGOs;
as well as the key members of both the 9/11 Commission and the Warren Commission
(JFK)
Eminent economist and Kennedy supporter, John K. Galbraith,
confirmed the Council's influence: "Those of us who had worked for the Kennedy election
were tolerated in the government for that reason and had a say, but foreign policy was still
with the Council on Foreign Relations people."
And no less than John
J. McCloy , the longtime chairman of the Council and advisor to nine U.S. presidents,
told the New York Times about his time in Washington : "Whenever we needed a man we thumbed
through the roll of the Council members and put through a call to New York."
German news magazine Der Spiegel once described the CFR as the "most
influential private institution of the United States and the Western world" and a "politburo of
capitalism". Both the Roman-inspired logo of the Council (top right in the illustration above)
as well as its slogan ( ubique – omnipresent) appear to emphasize that ambition.
"The directors of the CFR make up a sort of Presidium for that part of the Establishment
that guides our destiny as a nation.
[I]t rarely fails to get one of its members, or at least one of its allies, into the White
House. In fact, it generally is able to see to it that both nominees are men acceptable to
it."
Until recently, this assessment had indeed been justified. Thus, in 1993 former CFR director
George H.W. Bush was followed by CFR member Bill Clinton, who in turn was followed by CFR
"family member" George W. Bush. In 2008, CFR member John McCain lost against CFR candidate of
choice, Barack Obama, who
received the names of his entire Cabinet already one month prior to his election by CFR
Senior Fellow (and Citigroup banker) Michael Froman . Froman later negotiated the
TTP and TTIP free trade agreements, before returning to the CFR as a Distinguished Fellow.
It was not until the 2016 election that the Council couldn't, apparently, prevail. At any
rate, not yet.
"... Opinions expressed in FRBSF Economic Letter do not necessarily reflect the views of the management of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. ..."
Is GDP Overstating Economic Activity?, by Zheng Liu, Mark M. Spiegel, and Eric B. Tallman
: Two common measures of overall economic output are gross domestic product (GDP) and gross
domestic income (GDI). GDP is based on aggregate expenditures, while GDI is based on
aggregate income. In principle, the two measures should be identical. However, in practice,
they are not. The differences between these two series can arise from differences in source
data, errors in measuring their components, and the seasonal adjustment process.
In this Economic Letter , we evaluate the reliability of GDP relative to two
alternatives, GDI and a combination of the two known as GDPplus, for measuring economic
output. We test the ability of each to forecast a benchmark measure of economic activity over
the past two years. We find that GDP consistently outperforms the other two as a more
accurate predictor of aggregate economic activity over this period. This suggests that the
relative weakness of GDI growth in recent years does not necessarily indicate weakness in
overall economic growth.
Discrepancies between GDP and GDI
What drives the discrepancies between GDP and GDI is not well understood. The source data for
the components that go into GDP and GDI are measured with errors, which may lead to
discrepancies between the two. Further discrepancies can arise because those different
components are adjusted for seasonality at different points in time (see, for example, Grimm
2007).
The differences between these two series can be large. For example, in the last two quarters
of 2007, inflation-adjusted or "real" GDI was declining whereas real GDP was still growing.
The year-over-year growth rate of GDP exceeded that of GDI by almost 2.6 percentage points.
Over long periods, however, final measures of growth in GDP and GDI tend to yield roughly
equivalent assessments of economic activity. Since 1985, real GDP grew at an average annual
rate of about 3.98%, while real GDI grew at a similar average rate of 4.02%.
Since late 2015, the two series have diverged, with real GDP growth consistently exceeding
real GDI growth (Figure 1). The differences in growth are significant in this period. For
example, if we used GDI growth to assess overall economic activity since July 2015, then the
size of real aggregate output by the end of 2017 would be $230 billion smaller than if GDP
growth were used. This divergence between the two sends mixed signals regarding the strength
of recent economic activity.
Figure 1
Mixed signals from GDP and GDI growth
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Evaluating GDP, GDI, combination
Researchers often debate which of these series measures economic activity more accurately.
Nalewaik (2012) argues that GDI outperforms GDP in forecasting recessions. GDI does appear to
exhibit more cyclical volatility than GDP. One reason may be that GDI is more highly
correlated with a number of business cycle indicators, including movements in both employment
and unemployment (Nalewaik 2010). On the other hand, the Bureau of Economic Analysis has
resisted this conclusion, arguing that GDP is in general based on more reliable source data
than GDI is (Landefeld 2010).
To evaluate the relative reliability of GDP versus GDI for measuring economic output, we
compare their abilities to forecast a benchmark measure of economic activity. We focus on the
Chicago Fed
National Activity Index (CFNAI) as the benchmark, since it is publicly available. The
CFNAI is a monthly index of national economic activity, generated as the common component of
85 monthly series in the U.S. economy. These underlying series include a wide variety of data
covering production and income, employment and unemployment, personal consumption and
housing, and sales and orders. The CFNAI has been shown to help forecast real GDP (Lang and
Lansing 2010). We use the CFNAI as a benchmark activity indicator to evaluate the relative
forecasting performances of GDP and GDI and their combinations. Since the discrepancy between
these two series has persisted for several years, we focus on the final releases of the GDP
and GDI series.
Some have argued that, because the GDP and GDI series contain independent information, it may
be preferable to combine the two series into a single more informative activity indicator.
One series that uses such a combination is the Philadelphia Fed's GDPplus
series, which is a weighted average of GDP and GDI, with the weights based on the approach
described by Aruoba et al. (2016). As a weighted average, GDPplus indicates activity levels
between the two individual series. We therefore also consider the forecasting performance of
the GDPplus series over this period of extended discrepancy between reported GDP and GDI
growth.
To confirm the accuracy of our approach, we repeated our investigation with two alternative
series constructed using methodologies similar to the CFNAI. The first alternative is an
aggregate economic activity index (EAI) we constructed by extracting the common components of
90 underlying monthly time series. The EAI covers a broader set of monthly indicators than
the CFNAI, since we also include information from goods prices and asset prices.
The second alternative indicator we considered is an activity index constructed by Barigozzi
and Luciani (2018), which we call the BL index. Like our index, the BL index includes price
indexes and other measures of labor costs. The authors base their estimates on the portions
of GDP and GDI that are driven by common macroeconomic shocks under the assumption that they
have equivalent effects on GDP and GDI. This restriction implies that deviations between GDP
and GDI are transitory, and that the two series follow each other over time.
The EAI and the BL index are both highly correlated with the CFNAI and thus yielded similar
conclusions. We describe the source data and our methodology for constructing the EAI as well
as the analysis using both it and the BL index in an
online appendix .
Empirical results
To examine the relative performances of GDP, GDI, and GDPplus for forecasting the CFNAI, we
first estimate an empirical model in which the CFNAI is related to four lagged values of one
of these measures of aggregate output. Ideally, we would have used the full sample of postwar
data in our model, but there are some structural breaks in the data related to factors such
as changes in the monetary policy regime since the mid-1980s and the Great Moderation that
make this challenging. We therefore choose to focus on the sample starting from the first
quarter of 1985 in this discussion; our results using the full sample are similar, as we
report in the
online appendix .
To examine how well each of the measures of aggregate output are able to forecast the CFNAI,
we estimate the model using the sample observations up to the end of 2015, the period before
GDP and GDI diverged. Once we determine the estimated coefficients that describe each
relationship, we use those values to estimate forecasts for the period when discrepancies
developed, from the first quarter of 2016 to the end of 2017. We then calculate the
prediction errors, measured by the root mean-squared errors, for each measure of aggregate
output. The smaller the prediction error, the better the forecasting performance.
In addition to examining the forecasting performance of GDP, GDI, and GDPplus for predicting
the CFNAI economic activity indicator, we also examined their forecasting performance for the
unemployment rate as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Figure 2 displays the prediction errors from 2016 to 2017 for each of the alternative output
measures -- GDP, GDI, and GDPplus -- estimated from our model for CFNAI and unemployment. For
ease of comparison, we normalize the prediction errors from the model with GDP to one. The
figure shows that the prediction errors over this period based on the GDP series are
substantively lower than those based on GDI or GDPplus. This finding holds true not just for
these proxies for economic activity but also for our EAI and the BL index (see the
online appendix ). Moreover, formal statistical tests of forecasting performance indicate
that the forecasts based on GDP are significantly better than those based on GDI or GDPplus
at the 95% confidence level. This result suggests that, in recent periods, GDP has been a
more reliable independent indicator of economic activity than either GDI or GDPplus.
Figure 2
GDP outperforms GDI, GDPplus in predicting activity
Note: Figure shows prediction errors with GDP indexed to 1.
Conclusion
While GDP and GDI are theoretically identical measures of economic output, they can differ
significantly in practice over some periods. The differences between the two series have been
particularly pronounced in the past two years, when GDP growth has been consistently stronger
than GDI growth. Based on this observation, some analysts have claimed that GDP might be
overstating the pace of growth and that GDI, or some combination of GDP and GDI, should be
used to evaluate the levels and growth rate of economic activity.
To evaluate the validity of this claim, we compared the relative performances of GDP, GDI,
and a combined measure, GDPplus, for forecasting the CFNAI, which we use as a benchmark
measure of economic activity over the past two years. We find that GDP consistently
outperforms both GDI and combinations of the two, such as GDPplus, in forecasting aggregate
economic activity during the past two years. In this sense, GDP is a more accurate predictor
of aggregate economic activity than GDI over this period. Therefore, the relative weakness of
GDI growth observed in recent years does not necessarily indicate weakness in overall
economic growth.
Zheng
Liu is a senior research advisor in the Economic Research Department of the Federal
Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
Mark M. Spiegel is a
vice president in the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San
Francisco.
Eric B. Tallman is a research associate in the Economic Research Department of the Federal
Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
References
Aruoba, S. Boragan, Francis X. Diebold, Jeremy Nalewaik, Frank Schorfheide, and Dongho Song.
2016. "Improving GDP Measurement: A Measurement-Error Perspective." Journal of
Econometrics 191(2), pp. 384–397.
Landefeld, J. Steven. 2010. "Comments and Discussion: The Income- and Expenditure-Side
Estimates of U.S. Output Growth." Brookings Papers on Economic Activity , Spring,
pp. 112–123.
Nalewaik, Jeremy J. 2010. "The Income- and Expenditure-Side Estimates of U.S. Output Growth."
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity , Spring, pp. 71–106.
Nalewaik, Jeremy J. 2012. "Estimating Probabilities of Recession in Real Time Using GDP and
GDI." Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 44, pp. 235–253.
Opinions expressed in FRBSF Economic Letter do not necessarily reflect the views of
the management of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or of the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System.
Fine, "Vickrey macro," but every time that is asserted there needs to be a reference to a
clear summary statement of what that means. A Wikipedia reference would do, but the assertion
has almost no influence unless made immediately, simply meaningful.
Just one simple reference summary will do, continually repeated.
Fifteen Fatal Fallacies of Financial Fundamentalism
A Disquisition on Demand Side Economics
By William Vickrey
Much of the conventional economic wisdom prevailing in financial circles, largely
subscribed to as a basis for governmental policy, and widely accepted by the media and the
public, is based on incomplete analysis, contrafactual assumptions, and false analogy. For
instance, encouragement to saving is advocated without attention to the fact that for most
people encouraging saving is equivalent to discouraging consumption and reducing market
demand, and a purchase by a consumer or a government is also income to vendors and suppliers,
and government debt is also an asset. Equally fallacious are implications that what is
possible or desirable for individuals one at a time will be equally possible or desirable for
all who might wish to do so or for the economy as a whole.
And often analysis seems to be based on the assumption that future economic output is
almost entirely determined by inexorable economic forces independently of government policy
so that devoting more resources to one use inevitably detracts from availability for another.
This might be justifiable in an economy at chock-full employment, or it might be validated in
a sense by postulating that the Federal Reserve Board will pursue and succeed in a policy of
holding unemployment strictly to a fixed "non-inflation-accelerating" or "natural" rate. But
under current conditions such success is neither likely nor desirable.
Some of the fallacies that result from such modes of thought are as follows. Taken
together their acceptance is leading to policies that at best are keeping us in the economic
doldrums with overall unemployment rates stuck in the 5 to 6 percent range. This is bad
enough merely in terms of the loss of 10 to 15 percent of our potential production, even if
shared equitably, but when it translates into unemployment of 10, 20, and 40 percent among
disadvantaged groups, the further damages in terms of poverty, family breakup, school truancy
and dropout, illegitimacy, drug use, and crime become serious indeed. And should the implied
policies be fully carried out in terms of a "balanced budget," we could well be in for a
serious depression.
Fallacy 1
Deficits are considered to represent sinful profligate spending at the expense of future
generations who will be left with a smaller endowment of invested capital. This fallacy seems
to stem from a false analogy to borrowing by individuals.
Fallacy 2
Urging or providing incentives for individuals to try to save more is said to stimulate
investment and economic growth. This seems to derive from an assumption of an unchanged
aggregate output so that what is not used for consumption will necessarily and automatically
be devoted to capital formation.
Fallacy 3
Government borrowing is supposed to "crowd out" private investment.
Fallacy 4
Inflation is called the "cruelest tax." The perception seems to be that if only prices
would stop rising, one's income would go further, disregarding the consequences for
income.
Fallacy 5
"A chronic trend towards inflation is a reflection of living beyond our means." Alfred
Kahn, quoted in Cornell '93, summer issue.
Fallacy 6
Fallacy 7
Many profess a faith that if only governments would stop meddling, and balance their
budgets, free capital markets would in their own good time bring about prosperity, possibly
with the aid of "sound" monetary policy. It is assumed that there is a market mechanism by
which interest rates adjust promptly and automatically to equate planned saving and
investment in a manner analogous to the market by which the price of potatoes balances supply
and demand. In reality no such market mechanism exists; if a prosperous equilibrium is to be
achieved it will require deliberate intervention on the part of monetary authorities.
Fallacy 8
If deficits continue, the debt service would eventually swamp the fisc.
Fallacy 9
The negative effect of considering the overhanging burden of the increased debt would, it
is claimed, cancel the stimulative effect of the deficit. This sweeping claim depends on a
failure to analyze the situation in detail.
Fallacy 10
The value of the national currency in terms of foreign exchange (or gold) is held to be a
measure of economic health, and steps to maintain that value are thought to contribute to
this health. In some quarters a kind of jingoistic pride is taken in the value of one's
currency, or satisfaction may be derived from the greater purchasing power of the domestic
currency in terms of foreign travel.
Fallacy 11
It is claimed that exemption of capital gains from income tax will promote investment and
growth.
Fallacy 12
Debt would, it is held, eventually reach levels that cause lenders to balk with taxpayers
threatening rebellion and default.
Fallacy 13
Authorizing income-generating budget deficits results in larger and possibly more
extravagant, wasteful and oppressive government expenditures.
Fallacy 14
Government debt is thought of as a burden handed on from one generation to its children
and grandchildren.
Fallacy 15
Unemployment is not due to lack of effective demand, reducible by demand-increasing
deficits, but is either "structural," resulting from a mismatch between the skills of the
unemployed and the requirements of jobs, or "regulatory", resulting from minimum wage laws,
restrictions on the employment of classes of individuals in certain occupations, requirements
for medical coverage, or burdensome dismissal constraints, or is "voluntary," in part the
result of excessively generous and poorly designed social insurance and relief
provisions.
It is thought necessary to keep unemployment at a "non-inflation-accelerating" level
("NIARU") in the range of 4% to 6% if inflation is to be kept from increasing
unacceptably.
"Deficits are considered to represent sinful profligate spending at the expense of future
generations who will be left with a smaller endowment of invested capital. This fallacy seems
to stem from a false analogy to borrowing by individuals."
Except, we do not say a worker with $1000 a week income buying a $100,000 home first week
in May ran a $99,200 deficit (still needed food and gas) that week.
But government might run a $10 billion per week deficit from paying workers to build
infrastructure that will last a century plus with maintenance which will be repaid with
higher taxes over the next 50 years plus higher taxes for operations,....
Or the $10 billion per week deficit might be from ending all infrastructure building and
slashing spending on operations so a $11 billion per week tax cut could be implemented ($1
billion in taxes to repay and operate the infrastructure being built at $10 billion per
week).
Households and businesses maintain four ledgers, one pair is income and expense, and the
other is assets and liabilities. Buying a car, house, factory or car is not an expense, but
an addition to assets with offsetting liability. They are expensed over time as depreciation.
Excess income over expense is added to assets, in a cash account. Paying cash for an asset
moves the value from one part of the asset ledger, unless you have a separate fund for
emergency or retire and you borrow from it to pay for the car creating two new entries, a
liability for borrowing your money offset by the asset car.
I did this in the 60s and 70s with a ledger I then punched on IBM cards so I could create
multiple reports from one set of transactions, like a business. In the 90s, I did this for a
year or two with Quicken. It was not part of the "quick" entry and report which was more like
a check register, but it had all the options for asset and liability ledgers, with tied
entries between ledgers, mostly focused on investment accounts. It lacked a comprehensive
asset ledger function to tally house, car, truck, boat, home theater, cabin, and then
depreciate them, but I'm guessing QuickBooks has these functions.
For the Federal government, and State governments, many assets are on the books of local
government or government subunits, but finance by a bigger government. For example, NH State
government funds building most of new schools out of a cash account, while half a century
ago, a local government would hike a tax to fund issuing a bond, which means the State
mandated school was easy to fund for the rich towns, but almost impossible for poor towns
with very low tax base. Once moved to the conservative State level, issuing tax backed bonds
became politically difficult.
In the 60s, government debt was for building assets and bonds had tax revenue streams to
repay them. But conservatives hated the investment part of government because while it meant
jobs, it also required taxes.
For example, the highway trust fund was based on taxes to fill it to pay States to pay
workers. If a bunch of States wanted more jobs, that led to higher taxes.
Social Security Trust funds are based on an investment asset and liability model. The
assets are the current and future workers plus trust funds and the liabilities are current
and future beneficiaries being paid and to be paid. The Trustees report on these two ledgers
annually, along with income and expense. For a number of years, they have reported the
liabilities are growing slightly faster than assets.
But the rise of free lunch economics that basically rejects capitalism and it's
accounting, simply call liabilities the FICA revenue and the expenses and claim there are no
SS assets.
Progressives seem to live hand to mouth, rejecting capitalist principles.
You make claims like this all the time. Without a shred of evidence. Why don't you
SPECIFICALLY point to a time when you think pgl misrepresented something.
You did this for me once, and it became instantly clear that you cannot read - or at least
read things into comments that are not there. What did pgl misrepresent. Waiting.
Vickrey wrote on a wide range of topics besides macroeconomics. Now he also had certain
progressive Keynesian views, which I share. Of course I'm not into the mindless name dropping
that Paine is into. I would rather actually read what economists wrote. A couple of us
provided the 1996 Fifteen Fallacies paper he wrote which is an excellent read.
I do wonder if Paine himself ever bothered to read it as he sure has never bothered to
explain what it said.
Yes, I agree with the ideas of Vickrey and can use my abstract of the 15 fallacies as a
guide. I am pleased. The post below can then be linked to in future...
Last night found and read the Vickrey reference. Made a bet with myself that the toxic
troika's response would be to hurl low quality insults and disrupt.
Looking to housework in China, and how it has been radically changed with development, I
realize to my surprise that per capita GDP growth and distribution of income surely measures
housework. A house with electricity alone allows for a revolution in housework. Detergent
(non-phosphate) works wonders...
Neoliberal Economics being the creation of middle aged upper middle class men during the
1940's through the 1990's places value of zero on 'women's work'
Despite that much of it involves supporting current workers, birthing and raising next gen
workers.
The Socialist/Communist Critique is families require some amount of resources in order to
effectively perform that work. As such if you're going to have paid work then the state
should require that the level of pay is adequate.
The neoliberal response is to get the vapors and engage in gate keeping behavior.
As a child grows up and receives all forms of social training and other preparation to
participate in society ("get a job"), it is generally a quantity of "women's' work" that is
"spent" to do this. But it's not "spent" so much as "invested", as the product of the work is
a much improved human being. The young person embodies the investment. I guess we now call
this "human capital". In any event, it's an investment of women's work that creates it.
Now, one would think that someone possessing such capital might face better prospects than
one who does not, and that seems to be true. But it seems you can look at how competitive the
asset is by looking at how it faires in the market. In recent decades, look at the gain in
starting salaries. I have not seen a good series, but it seems they have lagged inflation,
let alone GDP per capita. Thus the real yield on the asset has been negative, or one could
say the yield has been on average entirely captured by employers. Others might make
statements using "exploitation".
The job market for young people has been a cruel game of musical chairs: make a lifetime
of investment just to join a circle for which there are too few chairs, and the employer gets
all the yield.
Fifteen Fatal Fallacies of Financial Fundamentalism
A Disquisition on Demand Side Economics
By William Vickrey
Much of the conventional economic wisdom prevailing in financial circles, largely
subscribed to as a basis for governmental policy, and widely accepted by the media and the
public, is based on incomplete analysis, contrafactual assumptions, and false analogy. For
instance, encouragement to saving is advocated without attention to the fact that for most
people encouraging saving is equivalent to discouraging consumption and reducing market
demand, and a purchase by a consumer or a government is also income to vendors and suppliers,
and government debt is also an asset. Equally fallacious are implications that what is
possible or desirable for individuals one at a time will be equally possible or desirable for
all who might wish to do so or for the economy as a whole.
And often analysis seems to be based on the assumption that future economic output is
almost entirely determined by inexorable economic forces independently of government policy
so that devoting more resources to one use inevitably detracts from availability for another.
This might be justifiable in an economy at chock-full employment, or it might be validated in
a sense by postulating that the Federal Reserve Board will pursue and succeed in a policy of
holding unemployment strictly to a fixed "non-inflation-accelerating" or "natural" rate. But
under current conditions such success is neither likely nor desirable.
Some of the fallacies that result from such modes of thought are as follows.
Fallacy 1
Deficits are considered to represent sinful profligate spending at the expense of future
generations who will be left with a smaller endowment of invested capital. This fallacy seems
to stem from a false analogy to borrowing by individuals.
Fallacy 2
Urging or providing incentives for individuals to try to save more is said to stimulate
investment and economic growth. This seems to derive from an assumption of an unchanged
aggregate output so that what is not used for consumption will necessarily and automatically
be devoted to capital formation.
Fallacy 3
Government borrowing is supposed to "crowd out" private investment.
Fallacy 4
Inflation is called the "cruelest tax." The perception seems to be that if only prices
would stop rising, one's income would go further, disregarding the consequences for
income.
Fallacy 5
"A chronic trend towards inflation is a reflection of living beyond our means." Alfred
Kahn, quoted in Cornell '93, summer issue.
Fallacy 6
It is thought necessary to keep unemployment at a "non-inflation-accelerating" level
("NIARU") in the range of 4% to 6% if inflation is to be kept from increasing
unacceptably.
Fallacy 7
Many profess a faith that if only governments would stop meddling, and balance their
budgets, free capital markets would in their own good time bring about prosperity, possibly
with the aid of "sound" monetary policy. It is assumed that there is a market mechanism by
which interest rates adjust promptly and automatically to equate planned saving and
investment in a manner analogous to the market by which the price of potatoes balances supply
and demand. In reality no such market mechanism exists; if a prosperous equilibrium is to be
achieved it will require deliberate intervention on the part of monetary authorities.
Fallacy 8
If deficits continue, the debt service would eventually swamp the fisc.
Fallacy 9
The negative effect of considering the overhanging burden of the increased debt would, it
is claimed, cancel the stimulative effect of the deficit. This sweeping claim depends on a
failure to analyze the situation in detail.
Fallacy 10
The value of the national currency in terms of foreign exchange (or gold) is held to be a
measure of economic health, and steps to maintain that value are thought to contribute to
this health. In some quarters a kind of jingoistic pride is taken in the value of one's
currency, or satisfaction may be derived from the greater purchasing power of the domestic
currency in terms of foreign travel.
Fallacy 11
It is claimed that exemption of capital gains from income tax will promote investment and
growth.
Fallacy 12
Debt would, it is held, eventually reach levels that cause lenders to balk with taxpayers
threatening rebellion and default.
Fallacy 13
Authorizing income-generating budget deficits results in larger and possibly more
extravagant, wasteful and oppressive government expenditures.
Fallacy 14
Government debt is thought of as a burden handed on from one generation to its children
and grandchildren.
Fallacy 15
Unemployment is not due to lack of effective demand, reducible by demand-increasing
deficits, but is either "structural," resulting from a mismatch between the skills of the
unemployed and the requirements of jobs, or "regulatory", resulting from minimum wage laws,
restrictions on the employment of classes of individuals in certain occupations, requirements
for medical coverage, or burdensome dismissal constraints, or is "voluntary," in part the
result of excessively generous and poorly designed social insurance and relief
provisions.
Government debt is thought of as a burden handed on from one generation to its children
and grandchildren."
So, Trump, and the GOP starting with Reagan, but especially in the 21st century, have
created great fantastic wealth to lift away all burden from future generations!
Huge lifting of burden!
The future is life of ease in a huge hammock of debt!
I think Trump's victory broke the brains of the toxic trio (PGL, EMichael, kurt). They say
it's pure racism. America is racist. We knew that, but Obama won twice. Oh it was a
"backlash." Nah, Ben Rhodes knows.
How Trump's Election Shook Obama: 'What if We Were Wrong?'
By Peter Baker
May 30, 2018
WASHINGTON -- Riding in a motorcade in Lima, Peru, shortly after the 2016 election,
President Barack Obama was struggling to understand Donald J. Trump's victory.
"What if we were wrong?" he asked aides riding with him in the armored presidential
limousine.
He had read a column asserting that liberals had forgotten how important identity was to
people and had promoted an empty cosmopolitan globalism that made many feel left behind.
"Maybe we pushed too far," Mr. Obama said. "Maybe people just want to fall back into their
tribe."
His aides reassured him that he still would have won had he been able to run for another
term and that the next generation had more in common with him than with Mr. Trump. Mr. Obama,
the first black man elected president, did not seem convinced. "Sometimes I wonder whether I
was 10 or 20 years too early," he said.
In the weeks after Mr. Trump's election, Mr. Obama went through multiple emotional stages,
according to a new book by his longtime adviser Benjamin J. Rhodes. At times, the departing
president took the long view, at other points, he flashed anger. He called Mr. Trump a
"cartoon" figure who cared more about his crowd sizes than any particular policy. And he
expressed rare self-doubt, wondering whether he had misjudged his own influence on American
history.
[Obama's painfully slow recovery influenced history. Read Benjamin Friedman and Chris
Dillow]
...
Mr. Obama and his team were confident that Mrs. Clinton would win and, like much of the
country, were shocked when she did not. "I couldn't shake the feeling that I should have seen
it coming," Mr. Rhodes writes. "Because when you distilled it, stripped out the racism and
misogyny, we'd run against Hillary eight years ago with the same message Trump had used:
She's part of a corrupt establishment that can't be trusted to bring change."
Funny you call me toxic when you just posted a smear and a lie. I have NEVER said it was all
racism or only racism and you know it. What I have said is that 1. economic insecurity does
not appear - due to study as opposed to your feelings - to have been a primary factor in the
decision of Trump voters, and 2. that the studies show that the primary motivators were
racism, fear of cultural change, sexism, and fear of immigrants. Economic insecurity fell
several orders of magnitude below the primary motivators. In fact, you missed the "fall back
into tribalism" part of your own post. Then again, you have never displayed even the
slightest modicum of reading comprehension ability.
U.S. Foreclosure Activity Drops to 12-Year Low in 2017
But New York Foreclosure Auctions, New Jersey REOs Both at 11-Year High;
Biggest Backlogs of Legacy Foreclosures in New York, New Jersey, Florida
IRVINE, Calif. – Jan. 18, 2018 – ATTOM Data Solutions, curator of the nation's
largest multi-sourced property database, today released its Year-End 2017 U.S. Foreclosure
Market Report, which shows foreclosure filings -- default notices, scheduled auctions and
bank repossessions -- were reported on 676,535 U.S. properties in 2017, down 27 percent from
2016 and down 76 percent from a peak of nearly 2.9 million in 2010 to the lowest level since
2005...
*
[When people that voted for Trump answer the question "Why" would it be too much to expect
that their answer might change over time with their perception of both the economy and Donald
Trump? There has always been a shortage of real world ceteris paribus in economics going back
before Adam Smith.]
You're being obtuse again. The effect of the center left liberal (see the Toxic Troika)
campaign to mock economic anxiety's explanatory power is to deny it had anything to with
Trump winning. They (you) deny he was populist when his rhetoric was very anti-elite and he's
a new kind of Republican whose dog whistles are out in the open. THAT's why Obama was alarmed
you obtuse moron!!!!
Benjamin Friedman and Chris Dillow are not hard to understand. A stagnating economy causes
people to retreat to tribalism and become susceptible to demagogues. Of course a lot of
people were already racist, but if the recovery had been good, had the last 40 years been
prosperous for your average voter Hillary would have won instead of Trump.
Yet just yesterday the Toxic Troika's hero Krugman tweeted this straw man:
Hey, Roseanne Barr is only worth $80 million, and was being paid only 250K per episode. So
her tweets were clearly driven by economic anxiety
1:49 PM - 29 May 2018
----------------------------------------
Does Krugman understand how dislike he is by the Left? I think he does. This kind of thing
is him lashing back at the Left.
-----------------------------
As Krugman blogged about Bernie Sanders's policies during the primary, he said they didn't
combat populism in Europe which is clearly wrong.
You can keep going about your stupid meaningless studies/paid propaganda but Krugman went
on to contradict himself by saying populism in Italy WAS CAUSED by economic anxiety!!!
If the European Central Bank hadn't forced slow growth on Italy maybe the new government
wouldn't be made up of populist parties who blame immigrants and the EU.
Not hard to understand but no doubt the Italian center left party Democrats (who nobody
voted for) sad it was all about anti-immigrant racism nothing more.
Wow you are thick. You are completely unable to understand the nuance of reality. You
continue to claim things that are not true - about what I posted and about what Krugman
posted. You cannot understand that what motivated Americans was different - substantively -
than what motivated Italians. You claim that Krugman was wrong, yet provide zero evidence.
Krugman provided evidence. Where is yours. Why do you deny study. Why do you deny rigor? I
think I know - it is because your entire world view comes crashing down in the face of
evidence. The world is not binary no matter how much you want it to be. It is complicated and
messy.
I think the Toxic Troika would agree on the bad effects of Fox news and conservative UK
tabloid media. This helps translate economic stagnation into conservative majorities.
[I always thought Thoma did the website as a way to combat this with free discussion among
experts and hobbyists. Banning people as the Troika wants isn't going to help.]
Saturday, 2 December 2017
If we treat plutocracy as democracy, democracy dies
by Simon Wren-Lewis
The snake-oil salesmen
There are many similarities between Brexit and Trump. They are both authoritarian
movements, where authority either lies with a single individual or a single vote: the vote
that bindsthem all. This authority expresses the movement's identity. They are irrational
movements, by which I mean that they cast aside expertise where that conflicts with the
movements wishes. As a result, you will find their base of supporters among the less well
educated, and that universities are seen as an enemy. Both groups are intensely
nationalistic: both want to make America or England great again.
It is easy to relate each group to familiar concepts: class, race or whatever. But I think
this classification misses something important. It misses what sustains these groups in their
beliefs, allows them to maintain their world view which is so often contradicted by reality.
Both groups get their information about the world from a section of the media that has turned
news into propaganda. In the US this is Fox, and in the UK the right wing tabloids and the
Telegraph.
A profound mistake is to see this media as a symptom rather than a cause. As the study I
spoke about here clearly demonstrates, the output of Fox news is not designed to maximise its
readership, but to maximise the impact of its propaganda on its readership. I think you could
say exactly the same about the Sun and the Mail in the UK. Fox and the Sun are owned by the
same man.
Even those who manage to cast off the idea that this unregulated media just reflects the
attitude of its readers, generally think of this media as supportive of political parties.
There is the Conservative and Labour supporting press in the UK, and similarly for the US. In
my view that idea is ten or twenty years out of date, and even then it underestimates the
independence of the media organisations. (The Sun famously supported Blair in 1997). More and
more it is the media that calls the shots, and the political parties follow.
Brexit would not have happened if it had remained the wish of a minority of Conservative
MPs. It happened because of the right wing UK press. Brexit happened because this right wing
press recognised a large section of their readership were disaffected from conventional
politics, and began grooming them with stories of EU immigrants taking jobs, lowering wages
and taking benefits (and sometimes much worse). These stories were not (always) false, but
like all good propaganda they elevated a half-truth into a firm belief. Of course this
grooming played on age old insecurities, but it magnified them into a political movement.
Nationalism does the same. It did not just reflect readers existing views, but rather played
on their doubts and fears and hopes and turned this into votes.
This is not to discount some of the very real grievances that led to the Brexit vote, or
the racism that led to the election of Trump. This analysis of today's populism is important,
as long as it does not get sidetracked into debates over identity versus economics. Stressing
economic causes of populism does not devalue identity issues (like race or immigration), but
it is the economics that causes the swings that help put populists in power. It was crucial,
for example, to the trick that the media played to convince many to vote for Brexit: that EU
immigrants and payments were reducing access to public services, whereas in reality the
opposite is true.
Yet while economic issues may have created a winning majority for both Brexit and Trump,
the identity issues sustained by the media make support for both hard to diminish. Brexit and
Trump are expressions of identity, and often of what has been lost, which are very difficult
to break down when sustained by the group's media. In addition both Trump and Brexit
maintain, because their proponents want it to be maintained, the idea that it represents the
normally ignored, striking back against the government machine in the capital city with all
its experts.
But to focus on what some call the 'demand' for populism is in danger of missing at least
half the story. Whatever legitimate grievances Brexit and Trump supporters may have had, they
were used and will be betrayed. There is nothing in leaving the EU that will help the
forgotten towns of England and Wales. Although he may try, Trump will not bring many
manufacturing jobs back to the rust belt, and his antics with NAFTA may make things worse.
Identifying the left behind is only half the story, because it does not tell you why they
fell for the remedies of snake-oil salesmen.
As I wrote immediately after the vote in my most widely read post, Brexit was first and
foremost a triumph for the UK right wing press. That press first fostered a party, UKIP, that
embodied the views the press pushed. The threat of that party and defections to it then
forced the Prime Minister to offer the referendum the press wanted. It was a right wing press
that sold a huge lie about the UK economy, a lie the broadcast media bought, to ensure the
Conservatives won the next election. When the referendum came, it was this right wing press
that ensured enough votes were won and thereby overturned the government.
Equally Donald Trump was first and foremost the candidate of Fox News. As Bruce Bartlett
has so eloquently written, Fox may have started off as a network that just supported
Republicans, but its power steadily grew. Being partisan at Fox became misinforming its
viewers, such that Fox viewers are clearly less well informed than viewers of other news
providers. One analysis suggested over half of the facts stated on Fox are untrue: UK readers
may well remember them reporting that Birmingham was a no-go area for non-Muslims.
Fox became a machine for keeping the base angry and fired up, believing that nothing could
be worse than voting for a Democrat. It was Fox News that stopped Republican voters seeing
that they were voting for a demagogue, concealed that he lied openly all the time, that
incites hatred against other religions and ethnic groups, and makes its viewers believe that
Clinton deserves to be locked up. It is not reflecting the views of its viewers, but moulding
them. As economists have shown, the output of Fox does not optimise their readership, but
optimises the propaganda power of its output. Despite occasional tiffs, Trump was the
candidate of Fox in the primaries.
We have a right wing media organisation that has overthrown the Republican political
establishment, and a right wing press that has overthrown a right wing government. How some
political scientists can continue to analyse this as if the media were simply passive,
supportive or even invisible when it brings down governments or subverts political parties I
do not know.
The plutocracy
Trump and Brexit are the creations of a kind of plutocracy. Politics in the US has had
strong plutocratic elements for some time, because of the way that money can sway elections.
That gave finance a powerful influence in the Democratic party, and made the Republicans
obsessive about cutting higher tax rates. In the UK plutocracy has been almost non-existent
by comparison, and operated mainly through party funding and seats in the House of Lords,
although we are still finding out where the money behind the Brexit campaign came from.
By focusing on what some call the demand side of populism rather than the supply side, we
fail to see both Trump and Brexit as primarily expressions of plutocratic power. Trump's
administration is plutocracy personified, and as Paul Pierson argues, its substantive agenda
constitutes a full-throated endorsement of the GOP economic elite's long-standing agenda. The
Brexiteers want to turn the UK into Singapore, a kind of neoliberalism that stresses markets
should be free from government interference, rather than free to work for everyone, and that
trade should be free from regulations, rather than regulations being harmonised so that
business is free to trade.
It is also a mistake to see this plutocracy as designed to support capital. This should
again be obvious from Brexit and Trump. It is in capital's interest to have borders open to
goods and people rather than creating barriers and erecting walls. What a plutocracy will do
is ensure that high inequality, in terms of the 1% or 0.1% etc, is maintained or even
increased. Indeed many plutocrats amassed their wealth by extracting large sums from the
firms for which they worked, wealth that might otherwise have gone to investors in the form
of dividends. In this sense they are parasitic to capital. And this plutocracy will also
ensure that social mobility is kept low so the membership of the plutocracy is sustained:
social mobility goes with equality, as Pickett and Wilkinson show.
It is also a mistake to see what is happening as somehow the result of some kind of
invisible committee of the 1% (or 0.1% and so on). The interests of the Koch brothers are not
necessarily the interests of Trump (it is no accident the former want to help buy Time
magazine). The interests of Arron Banks are not those of Lloyd Blankfein. Instead we are
finding individual media moguls forming partnerships with particular politicians to press not
only their business interests, but their individual political views as well. And in this
partnership it is often clear who is dependent on whom. After all, media competition is slim
while there are plenty of politicians.
What has this got to do with neoliberalism? which is supposed to be the dominant culture
of the political right. As I argued here, it is a mistake to see neoliberalism as some kind
of unified ideology. It may have a common core in terms of the primacy of the market, but how
that is interpreted is not uniform. Are neoliberals in favour of free trade, or against? It
appears that they can be both. Instead neoliberalism is a set of ideas based around a common
belief in the market that different groups have used and interpreted to their advantage,
while at the same time also being influenced by the ideology. Both interests and ideas
matter. While some neoliberals see competition as the most valuable feature of capitalism,
others will seek to stifle competition to preserve monopoly power. Brexiters and their press
backers are neoliberals, just as the Cameron government they brought down were
neoliberals.
I think there is some truth in the argument, made by Philip Mirowski among others, that a
belief in neoliberalism can easily involve an anti-enlightenment belief that people need to
be persuaded to subject themselves fully to the market. Certainly those on the neoliberal
right are more easily persuaded to invest time and effort in the dark arts of spin than those
on the left. But it would be going too far to suggest that all neoliberals are
anti-democratic: as I have said, neoliberalism is diverse and divided. What I argued in my
neoliberal overreach post was that neoliberalism as formulated in the UK and US had made it
possible for the plutocracy we now see to become dominant.
Nobody wants you banned because you provide alternative opinions. I actually enjoy having a
well considered argument with people who have differing opinions. We want you banned because
you lie - constantly - about other peoples positions and you constantly gaslight. You are an
expert propagandist, but not an expert in much else. In fact, you get most things wrong. Also
- you are obnoxiously rude all the time. And you are always on the side of the Alex
Jones/Rush Limbaugh types.
It's not so much that he lies but that he never defends his arguments when countered with
facts and logic, basically doubling down like Trump in attacks on liberals arguing with facts
and logic.
But most important, he never explains why an African economy or Cuba economy or
Chavez-Maduro economy would be so much better. If they have such great economies, why hasn't
he moved there?
Hey Cuba is close by. And the fact trade is been cut off by the US embargo should be a big
plus given global trade is horrible for workers. The US government trade embargoes on Cuba
are providing great benefits to Cuban workers who never lose their job from evil imports from
the US.
And workers in Cuba benefit from lack of competition.
This looks like Ann Rand philosophy: "The people who needed protection were property owners,
and their rights could only be secured though constitutional limits to prevent the majority of
voters from encroaching on them, an idea Buchanan lays out in works like Property as a
Guarantor of Liberty (1993). MacLean observes that Buchanan saw society as a cutthroat realm
of makers (entrepreneurs) constantly under siege by takers (everybody else) His own language was
often more stark, warning the alleged "prey" of "parasites" and "predators" out to fleece
them."
Notable quotes:
"... By Lynn Parramore, Senior Research Analyst, Institute for New Economic Thinking. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... The Limits of Liberty ..."
"... Property as a Guarantor of Liberty ..."
"... Brown v. Board of Education ..."
"... Calhoun, called the "Marx of the Master Class" by historian Richard Hofstadter, saw himself and his fellow southern oligarchs as victims of the majority. Therefore, as MacLean explains, he sought to create "constitutional gadgets" to constrict the operations of government ..."
"... She argues out that unlike even the most property-friendly founders Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, Buchanan wanted a private governing elite of corporate power that was wholly released from public accountability. ..."
"... Suppressing voting, changing legislative processes so that a normal majority could no longer prevail, sowing public distrust of government institutions -- all these were tactics toward the goal. But the Holy Grail was the Constitution: alter it and you could increase and secure the power of the wealthy in a way that no politician could ever challenge. ..."
"... MacLean observes that the Virginia school, as Buchanan's brand of economic and political thinking is known, is a kind of cousin to the better-known, market-oriented Chicago and Austrian schools -- proponents of all three were members of the Mont Pelerin Society, an international neoliberal organization which included Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. But the Virginia school's focus and career missions were distinct. In an interview with the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), MacLean described Friedman and Buchanan as yin and yang: "Friedman was this genial, personable character who loved to be in the limelight and made a sunny case for the free market and the freedom to choose and so forth. Buchanan was the dark side of this: he thought, ok, fine, they can make a case for the free market, but everybody knows that free markets have externalities and other problems. So he wanted to keep people from believing that government could be the alternative to those problems." ..."
"... Buchanan's school focused on public choice theory, later adding constitutional economics and the new field of law and economics to its core research and advocacy. The economist saw that his vision would never come to fruition by focusing on who rules. It was much better to focus on the rules themselves , and that required a "constitutional revolution." ..."
"... MacLean describes how the economist developed a grand project to train operatives to staff institutions funded by like-minded tycoons, most significantly Charles Koch, who became interested in his work in the '70s and sought the economist's input in promoting "Austrian economics" in the U.S. and in advising the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. ..."
"... With Koch's money and enthusiasm, Buchanan's academic school evolved into something much bigger. By the 1990s, Koch realized that Buchanan's ideas -- transmitted through stealth and deliberate deception, as MacLean amply documents -- could help take government down through incremental assaults that the media would hardly notice. The tycoon knew that the project was extremely radical, even a "revolution" in governance, but he talked like a conservative to make his plans sound more palatable. ..."
"... At the 1997 fiftieth anniversary of the Mont Pelerin Society, MacLean recounts that Buchanan and his associate Henry Manne, a founding theorist of libertarian economic approaches to law, focused on such affronts to capitalists as environmentalism and public health and welfare, expressing eagerness to dismantle Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare as well as kill public education because it tended to foster community values. Feminism had to go, too: the scholars considered it a socialist project. ..."
"... To put the success into perspective, MacLean points to the fact that Henry Manne, whom Buchanan was instrumental in hiring, created legal programs for law professors and federal judges which could boast that by 1990 two of every five sitting federal judges had participated. "40 percent of the U.S. federal judiciary," writes MacLean, "had been treated to a Koch-backed curriculum." ..."
"... Buchanan's role in the disastrous Pinochet government of Chile has been underestimated partly because unlike Milton Friedman, who advertised his activities, Buchanan had the shrewdness to keep his involvement quiet. With his guidance, the military junta deployed public choice economics in the creation of a new constitution, which required balanced budgets and thereby prevented the government from spending to meet public needs. Supermajorities would be required for any changes of substance, leaving the public little recourse to challenge programs like the privatization of social security. ..."
"... The Limits of Liberty ..."
"... MacLean is not the only scholar to sound the alarm that the country is experiencing a hostile takeover that is well on its way to radically, and perhaps permanently, altering the society. Peter Temin, former head of the MIT economics department, INET grantee, and author of The Vanishing Middle Class ..."
"... The One Percent Solution ..."
"... She observes, for example, that many liberals have missed the point of strategies like privatization. Efforts to "reform" public education and Social Security are not just about a preference for the private sector over the public sector, she argues. You can wrap your head around, even if you don't agree. Instead, MacLean contents, the goal of these strategies is to radically alter power relations, weakening pro-public forces and enhancing the lobbying power and commitment of the corporations that take over public services and resources, thus advancing the plans to dismantle democracy and make way for a return to oligarchy. The majority will be held captive so that the wealthy can finally be free to do as they please, no matter how destructive. ..."
"... MacLean argues that despite the rhetoric of Virginia school acolytes, shrinking big government is not really the point. The oligarchs require a government with tremendous new powers so that they can bypass the will of the people. This, as MacLean points out, requires greatly expanding police powers "to control the resultant popular anger." The spreading use of pre-emption by GOP-controlled state legislatures to suppress local progressive victories such as living wage ordinances is another example of the right's aggressive use of state power. ..."
Nobel laureate James Buchanan is the intellectual lynchpin of the Koch-funded attack on
democratic institutions, argues Duke historian Nancy MacLean
Ask people to name the key minds that have shaped America's burst of radical right-wing
attacks on working conditions, consumer rights and public services, and they will typically
mention figures like free market-champion Milton Friedman, libertarian guru Ayn Rand, and
laissez-faire economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises.
James McGill Buchanan is a name you will rarely hear unless you've taken several classes in
economics. And if the Tennessee-born Nobel laureate were alive today, it would suit him just
fine that most well-informed journalists, liberal politicians, and even many economics students
have little understanding of his work.
The reason? Duke historian Nancy MacLean contends that his philosophy is so stark that even
young libertarian acolytes are only introduced to it after they have accepted the relatively
sunny perspective of Ayn Rand. (Yes, you read that correctly). If Americans really knew what
Buchanan thought and promoted, and how destructively his vision is manifesting under their
noses, it would dawn on them how close the country is to a transformation most would not even
want to imagine, much less accept.
That is a dangerous blind spot, MacLean argues in a meticulously researched book,
Democracy in Chains , a finalist for the National Book Award in Nonfiction. While Americans
grapple with Donald Trump's chaotic presidency, we may be missing the key to changes that are
taking place far beyond the level of mere politics. Once these changes are locked into place,
there may be no going back.
An Unlocked Door in Virginia
MacLean's book reads like an intellectual detective story. In 2010, she moved to North
Carolina, where a Tea Party-dominated Republican Party got control of both houses of the state
legislature and began pushing through a radical program to suppress voter rights, decimate
public services, and slash taxes on the wealthy that shocked a state long a beacon of southern
moderation. Up to this point, the figure of James Buchanan flickered in her peripheral vision,
but as she began to study his work closely, the events in North Carolina and also Wisconsin,
where Governor Scott Walker was leading assaults on collective bargaining rights, shifted her
focus.
Could it be that this relatively obscure economist's distinctive thought was being put
forcefully into action in real time?
MacLean could not gain access to Buchanan's papers to test her hypothesis until after his
death in January 2013. That year, just as the government was being shut down by Ted Cruz &
Co., she traveled to George Mason University in Virginia, where the economist's papers lay
willy-nilly across the offices of a building now abandoned by the Koch-funded faculty to a new,
fancier center in Arlington.
MacLean was stunned. The archive of the man who had sought to stay under the radar had been
left totally unsorted and unguarded. The historian plunged in, and she read through boxes and
drawers full of papers that included personal correspondence between Buchanan and billionaire
industrialist Charles Koch. That's when she had an amazing realization: here was the
intellectual lynchpin of a stealth revolution currently in progress.
A Theory of Property Supremacy
Buchanan, a 1940 graduate of Middle Tennessee State University who later attended the
University of Chicago for graduate study, started out as a conventional public finance
economist. But he grew frustrated by the way in which economic theorists ignored the political
process.
Buchanan began working on a description of power that started out as a critique of how
institutions functioned in the relatively liberal 1950s and '60s, a time when economist John
Maynard Keynes's ideas about the need for government intervention in markets to protect people
from flaws so clearly demonstrated in the Great Depression held sway. Buchanan, MacLean notes,
was incensed at what he saw as a move toward socialism and deeply suspicious of any form of
state action that channels resources to the public. Why should the increasingly powerful
federal government be able to force the wealthy to pay for goods and programs that served
ordinary citizens and the poor?
In thinking about how people make political decisions and choices, Buchanan concluded that
you could only understand them as individuals seeking personal advantage. In interview cited by
MacLean, the economist observed that in the 1950s Americans commonly assumed that elected
officials wanted to act in the public interest. Buchanan vehemently disagreed -- that was a
belief he wanted, as he put it, to "tear down." His ideas developed into a theory that came to
be known as "public choice."
Buchanan's view of human nature was distinctly dismal. Adam Smith saw human beings as
self-interested and hungry for personal power and material comfort, but he also acknowledged
social instincts like compassion and fairness. Buchanan, in contrast, insisted that people were
primarily driven by venal self-interest. Crediting people with altruism or a desire to serve
others was "romantic" fantasy: politicians and government workers were out for themselves, and
so, for that matter, were teachers, doctors, and civil rights activists. They wanted to control
others and wrest away their resources: "Each person seeks mastery over a world of slaves," he
wrote in his 1975 book, The Limits of Liberty .
Does that sound like your kindergarten teacher? It did to Buchanan.
The people who needed protection were property owners, and their rights could only be
secured though constitutional limits to prevent the majority of voters from encroaching on
them, an idea Buchanan lays out in works like Property as a Guarantor of Liberty
(1993). MacLean observes that Buchanan saw society as a cutthroat realm of makers
(entrepreneurs) constantly under siege by takers (everybody else) His own language was often
more stark, warning the alleged "prey" of "parasites" and "predators" out to fleece them.
In 1965 the economist launched a center dedicated to his theories at the University of
Virginia, which later relocated to George Mason University. MacLean describes how he trained
thinkers to push back against the Brown v. Board of Education decision to desegregate
America's public schools and to challenge the constitutional perspectives and federal policy
that enabled it. She notes that he took care to use economic and political precepts, rather
than overtly racial arguments, to make his case, which nonetheless gave cover to racists who
knew that spelling out their prejudices would alienate the country.
All the while, a ghost hovered in the background -- that of John C. Calhoun of South
Carolina, senator and seventh vice president of the United States.
Calhoun was an intellectual and political powerhouse in the South from the 1820s until his
death in 1850, expending his formidable energy to defend slavery. Calhoun, called the "Marx of
the Master Class" by historian Richard Hofstadter, saw himself and his fellow southern
oligarchs as victims of the majority. Therefore, as MacLean explains, he sought to create
"constitutional gadgets" to constrict the operations of government.
Economists Tyler Cowen and Alexander Tabarrok, both of George Mason University, have noted
the two men's affinities, heralding Calhoun "a
precursor of modern public choice theory" who "anticipates" Buchanan's thinking. MacLean
observes that both focused on how democracy constrains property owners and aimed for ways to
restrict the latitude of voters. She argues out that unlike even the most property-friendly
founders Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, Buchanan wanted a private governing elite of
corporate power that was wholly released from public accountability.
Suppressing voting, changing legislative processes so that a normal majority could no longer
prevail, sowing public distrust of government institutions -- all these were tactics toward the
goal. But the Holy Grail was the Constitution: alter it and you could increase and secure the
power of the wealthy in a way that no politician could ever challenge.
Gravy Train to Oligarchy
MacLean explains that Virginia's white elite and the pro-corporate president of the
University of Virginia, Colgate Darden, who had married into the DuPont family, found
Buchanan's ideas to be spot on. In nurturing a new intelligentsia to commit to his values,
Buchanan stated that he needed a "gravy train," and with backers like Charles Koch and
conservative foundations like the Scaife Family Charitable Trusts, others hopped aboard. Money,
Buchanan knew, can be a persuasive tool in academia. His circle of influence began to
widen.
MacLean observes that the Virginia school, as Buchanan's brand of economic and political
thinking is known, is a kind of cousin to the better-known, market-oriented Chicago and
Austrian schools -- proponents of all three were members of the Mont Pelerin Society, an
international neoliberal organization which included Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. But
the Virginia school's focus and career missions were distinct. In an interview with the
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), MacLean described Friedman and Buchanan as yin and yang: "Friedman was this genial, personable character who loved to be in the limelight and made a
sunny case for the free market and the freedom to choose and so forth. Buchanan was the dark
side of this: he thought, ok, fine, they can make a case for the free market, but everybody
knows that free markets have externalities and other problems. So he wanted to keep people from
believing that government could be the alternative to those problems."
The Virginia school also differs from other economic schools in a marked reliance on
abstract theory rather than mathematics or empirical evidence. That a Nobel Prize was awarded
in 1986 to an economist who so determinedly bucked the academic trends of his day was nothing
short of stunning, MacLean observes. But, then, it was the peak of the Reagan era, an
administration several Buchanan students joined.
Buchanan's school focused on public choice theory, later adding constitutional economics and
the new field of law and economics to its core research and advocacy. The economist saw that
his vision would never come to fruition by focusing on who rules. It was much better
to focus on the rules themselves , and that required a "constitutional
revolution."
MacLean describes how the economist developed a grand project to train operatives to staff
institutions funded by like-minded tycoons, most significantly Charles Koch, who became
interested in his work in the '70s and sought the economist's input in promoting "Austrian
economics" in the U.S. and in advising the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
Koch, whose mission was to save capitalists like himself from democracy, found the ultimate
theoretical tool in the work of the southern economist. The historian writes that Koch
preferred Buchanan to Milton Friedman and his "Chicago boys" because, she says, quoting a
libertarian insider, they wanted "to make government work more efficiently when the true
libertarian should be tearing it out at the root."
With Koch's money and enthusiasm, Buchanan's academic school evolved into something much
bigger. By the 1990s, Koch realized that Buchanan's ideas -- transmitted through stealth and
deliberate deception, as MacLean amply documents -- could help take government down through
incremental assaults that the media would hardly notice. The tycoon knew that the project was
extremely radical, even a "revolution" in governance, but he talked like a conservative to make
his plans sound more palatable.
MacLean details how partnered with Koch, Buchanan's outpost at George Mason University was
able to connect libertarian economists with right-wing political actors and supporters of
corporations like Shell Oil, Exxon, Ford, IBM, Chase Manhattan Bank, and General Motors.
Together they could push economic ideas to public through media, promote new curricula for
economics education, and court politicians in nearby Washington, D.C.
At the 1997 fiftieth anniversary of the Mont Pelerin Society, MacLean recounts that Buchanan
and his associate Henry Manne, a founding theorist of libertarian economic approaches to law,
focused on such affronts to capitalists as environmentalism and public health and welfare,
expressing eagerness to dismantle Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare as well as kill
public education because it tended to foster community values. Feminism had to go, too: the
scholars considered it a socialist project.
The Oligarchic Revolution Unfolds
Buchanan's ideas began to have huge impact, especially in America and in Britain. In his
home country, the economist was deeply involved efforts to cut taxes on the wealthy in 1970s
and 1980s and he advised proponents of Reagan Revolution in their quest to unleash markets and
posit government as the "problem" rather than the "solution." The Koch-funded Virginia school
coached scholars, lawyers, politicians, and business people to apply stark right-wing
perspectives on everything from deficits to taxes to school privatization. In Britain,
Buchanan's work helped to inspire the public sector reforms of Margaret Thatcher and her
political progeny.
To put the success into perspective, MacLean points to the fact that Henry Manne, whom
Buchanan was instrumental in hiring, created legal programs for law professors and federal
judges which could boast that by 1990 two of every five sitting federal judges had
participated. "40 percent of the U.S. federal judiciary," writes MacLean, "had been treated to
a Koch-backed curriculum."
MacLean illustrates that in South America, Buchanan was able to first truly set his ideas in
motion by helping a bare-knuckles dictatorship ensure the permanence of much of the radical
transformation it inflicted on a country that had been a beacon of social progress. The
historian emphasizes that Buchanan's role in the disastrous Pinochet government of Chile has
been underestimated partly because unlike Milton Friedman, who advertised his activities,
Buchanan had the shrewdness to keep his involvement quiet. With his guidance, the military
junta deployed public choice economics in the creation of a new constitution, which required
balanced budgets and thereby prevented the government from spending to meet public needs.
Supermajorities would be required for any changes of substance, leaving the public little
recourse to challenge programs like the privatization of social security.
The dictator's human rights abuses and pillage of the country's resources did not seem to
bother Buchanan, MacLean argues, so long as the wealthy got their way. "Despotism may be the
only organizational alternative to the political structure that we observe," the economist had
written in The Limits of Liberty . If you have been wondering about the end result of
the Virginia school philosophy, well, the economist helpfully spelled it out.
A World of Slaves
Most Americans haven't seen what's coming.
MacLean notes that when the Kochs' control of the GOP kicked into high gear after the
financial crisis of 2007-08, many were so stunned by the "shock-and-awe" tactics of shutting
down government, destroying labor unions, and rolling back services that meet citizens' basic
necessities that few realized that many leading the charge had been trained in economics at
Virginia institutions, especially George Mason University. Wasn't it just a new, particularly
vicious wave of partisan politics?
It wasn't. MacLean convincingly illustrates that it was something far more disturbing.
MacLean is not the only scholar to sound the alarm that the country is experiencing a
hostile takeover that is well on its way to radically, and perhaps permanently, altering the
society. Peter Temin, former head of the MIT economics department, INET grantee, and author of
The Vanishing Middle Class, as well as economist Gordon Lafer of the
University of Oregon and author of The One Percent Solution , have provided eye-opening analyses of where America is
headed and why. MacLean adds another dimension to this dystopian big picture, acquainting us
with what has been overlooked in the capitalist right wing's playbook.
She observes, for example, that many liberals have missed the point of strategies like
privatization. Efforts to "reform" public education and Social Security are not just about a
preference for the private sector over the public sector, she argues. You can wrap your head
around, even if you don't agree. Instead, MacLean contents, the goal of these strategies is to
radically alter power relations, weakening pro-public forces and enhancing the lobbying power
and commitment of the corporations that take over public services and resources, thus advancing
the plans to dismantle democracy and make way for a return to oligarchy. The majority will be
held captive so that the wealthy can finally be free to do as they please, no matter how
destructive.
MacLean argues that despite the rhetoric of Virginia school acolytes, shrinking big
government is not really the point. The oligarchs require a government with tremendous new
powers so that they can bypass the will of the people. This, as MacLean points out, requires
greatly expanding police powers "to control the resultant popular anger." The spreading use of
pre-emption by GOP-controlled state legislatures to suppress local progressive victories such
as living wage ordinances is another example of the right's aggressive use of state power.
Could these right-wing capitalists allow private companies to fill prisons with helpless
citizens -- or, more profitable still, right-less undocumented immigrants? They could, and
have . Might they engineer a retirement crisis by moving Americans to inadequate 401(k)s?
Done . Take away the rights of consumers and workers to bring grievances to court by
making them sign forced arbitration agreements? Check . Gut public education to the
point where ordinary people have such bleak prospects that they have no energy to fight back?
Getting it done .
Would they even refuse children clean water? Actually, yes.
MacLean notes that in Flint, Michigan, Americans got a taste of what the emerging oligarchy
will look like -- it tastes like poisoned water. There, the Koch-funded Mackinac Center pushed
for legislation that would allow the governor to take control of communities facing emergency
and put unelected managers in charge. In Flint, one such manager switched the city's water
supply to a polluted river, but the Mackinac Center's lobbyists ensured that the law was
fortified by protections against lawsuits that poisoned inhabitants might bring. Tens
of thousands of children were exposed to lead, a substance known to cause serious health
problems including brain damage.
Tyler Cowen has provided an
economic justification for this kind of brutality, stating that where it is difficult to
get clean water, private companies should take over and make people pay for it. "This includes
giving them the right to cut off people who don't -- or can't -- pay their bills," the
economist explains.
To many this sounds grotesquely inhumane, but it is a way of thinking that has deep roots in
America. In Why I, Too, Am Not a Conservative (2005), Buchanan considers the charge of
heartlessness made against the kind of classic liberal that he took himself to be. MacLean
interprets his discussion to mean that people who "failed to foresee and save money for their
future needs" are to be treated, as Buchanan put it, "as subordinate members of the species,
akin to animals who are dependent.'"
Do you have your education, health care, and retirement personally funded against all
possible exigencies? Then that means you.
Buchanan was not a dystopian novelist. He was a Nobel Laureate whose sinister logic exerts
vast influence over America's trajectory. It is no wonder that Cowen, on his popular blog
Marginal Revolution, does not
mention Buchanan on a list of underrated influential libertarian thinkers, though elsewhere
on the blog, he expresses admiration for several of Buchanan's contributions and
acknowledges that the southern economist "thought more consistently in terms of 'rules of
the games' than perhaps any other economist."
The rules of the game are now clear.
Research like MacLean's provides hope that toxic ideas like Buchanan's may finally begin to
face public scrutiny. Yet at this very moment, the Kochs' State Policy Network and the American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that connects corporate agents to conservative
lawmakers to produce legislation, are involved in projects that the Trump-obsessed media hardly
notices, like pumping money into state judicial races. Their aim is to stack the legal deck
against Americans in ways that MacLean argues may have even bigger effects than Citizens
United, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling which unleashed unlimited corporate spending on American
politics. The goal is to create a judiciary that will interpret the Constitution in favor of
corporations and the wealthy in ways that Buchanan would have heartily approved.
"The United States is now at one of those historic forks in the road whose outcome will
prove as fateful as those of the 1860s, the 1930s, and the 1960s," writes MacLean. "To value
liberty for the wealthy minority above all else and enshrine it in the nation's governing
rules, as Calhoun and Buchanan both called for and the Koch network is achieving, play by play,
is to consent to an oligarchy in all but the outer husk of representative form."
"... By Laura Basu, a Marie Curie Research Fellow at Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Culture. Originally published at openDemocracy ..."
"... This ideology spread through the media from the 1980s ..."
"... Fast-forward to April 2009, barely 6 months after the announcement of a £500 billion bank bailout. A media hysteria was nowraging around Britain's deficit . While greedy bankers were still taking some of the blame, the systemic problems in finance and the problems with the free-market model had been forgotten. Instead, public profligacy had become the dominant explanation for the deficit. The timeline of the crisis was being erased and rewritten. ..."
"... These measures were a ramped-up version of the kinds of reforms that had produced the crisis in the first place. This fact, however, was forgotten. These 'pro-business' moves were enthusiastically embraced by the media, far more so than austerity. Of the 5 outlets analysed (The BBC, Telegraph, Sun, Guardian and Mirror), only the Guardian rejected them more frequently than endorsing them. ..."
"... "One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." ..."
"... This post is disheartening in so many ways. Start with "media hysteria" -- adding yet another glib coinage to hide a lack of explanation behind a simple but innapt analogy like the endless "addictions" from which personifications of various abstract entities suffer. ..."
"... This coinage presupposes a media sufficiently free to be possessed by hysteria. Dancing puppets might with some art appear "hysterical". And the strange non-death of Neoliberalsm isn't so strange or poorly understood in 2018 though the detailed explanation hasn't reached as many as one might have hoped, including the authors of this brief post. Consider their unhappy mashup of thoughts in a key sentence of the first paragraph: "This power has been maintained with the help of a robust ideology centred on free markets (though in reality markets are captured by corporations and are maintained by the state) and the superiority of the private sector over the public sector." The tail of this sentence obviates the rest of the post. And we ought not ignore the detail that Neoliberalism believes in the Market as a solution to all problems -- NOT the 'free market' of neoclassical economics or libertarian ideology. ..."
"... From "media hysteria" the post postulates "amnesia" of a public convinced of "greedy bankers" who need regulation. In the U.S. the propaganda was more subtle -- at least in my opinion. We were fed the "bad apples" theory mocked in a brief series of media clips presented in the documentary film "Inside Job". Those clips suggest a better explanation for the swift media transitions from banking reform to balanced budgets and austerity with more tax cuts for the wealthy than "amnesia" or "hyper-amnesia". The media Corporations are tightly controlled by the same forces that captured Corporations and -- taking the phrase "the superiority of the private sector over the public sector" in the sense that a superior directs an inferior [rather than the intended(?) sense] -- direct and essentially own our governments. ..."
"... The remarkable thing about public discourse and political and economic news reporting is how superficial it has become, so devoid of a foundation of any kind in history or theory. You can not have an effective critique of society or the economy or anything, if you do not see a system with a history and think it matters. Neoliberalism has become what people say when they think none of it really matters; it is all just noise. ..."
"... "Neoliberalism has become what people say when they think none of it really matters; it is all just noise." ..."
"... I also think that the crisis of neoliberalism echos a problem caused by capitalism, itself. I think David Harvey stated that "capitalism doesn't solve problems, it often just moves them around". ..."
"... Matt Stoller tweet from August 2017, as germane now as ever: "The political crisis we are facing is simple. American commerce, law, finance, and politics is organized around cheating people." ..."
"... George Orwell noted that the middle class Left couldn't handle dealing with real working class people, although there isn't the same huge gulf these days, I believe there is still a vestige of it due to the British class system. The Fabians set up shop in the East End around the turn of the last century & directly rubbed shoulders with the likes of Coster Mongers – a combination that led to a strike that was one of the first success stories in the attempt to get a few more crumbs than what was usually allowed to fall from the top table. ..."
"... If Neoliberalism is now being noticed I imagine that it is because of it's success in working it's way up the food chain. After all these same Middle classes for the most part did not care much for the plight of the poor during those Victorian values. Many could not wait to employ maids of all work who slaved for up to fourteen hours a day with only Sunday afternoon's off. The Suffragettes had a real problem with this as their relatively comfortable lives would soon descend into drudgery without their servants. ..."
"... Coincidentally, the NYT article on Austerity Britain is the closest I have read to an accurate picture that I have seen for a good while. ..."
"... It's also not a new thing. British media worship of neoliberalism has been growing since the 1980s, at the same time as newspapers have been closing and media sources of all kinds laying off their staff. 2008 was a temporary blip, and since the average journalist has the attention span of a hamster, it was back to usual a few months later. Once the crash stopped being "news" old patterns reasserted themselves. I wonder, incidentally, how many economics journalists in the UK actually remember the time before neoliberalism? ..."
"... Consuming corporate media is increasingly a bizarro-world experience. Even something like the Trump scandal/constitutional crisis/investigation seems like the arrogant internecine warfare of corrupt factions of the establishment. Meanwhile, Americans are increasingly living out of their cars. ..."
"... 1. Oligarchs having captured thoroughly the media, the legislatures and the judiciary, (as well as large parts of what might be construed as "liberal" political organisations e.g. the Democratic Party of the USA) ..."
Posted on
May 29, 2018 by Yves Smith Yves here. I'm sure readers
could write a US version of this timeline despite the fact that we had a second crisis and
bailout, that of way more foreclosures than were warranted, thanks to lousy incentives to
mortgage servicers and lack of political will to intervene, and foreclosure fraud to cover up
for chain of title failures.
By Laura Basu, a Marie Curie Research Fellow at Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and
Culture. Originally published at
openDemocracy
It hasn't escaped many people's attention that, a decade after the biggest economic crash of
a generation, the economic model producing that meltdown has not exactly been laid to rest.
The crisis in the
NHS and the
Carillion and Capital scandals are testament to that. Sociologist Colin Crouch wrote a book
in 2011 about the 'strange non-death of neoliberalism', arguing that the neoliberal model is
centred on the needs of corporations and that corporate power actually intensified after the
2008 financial meltdown. This power has been maintained with the help of a robust ideology
centred on free markets (though in reality markets are captured by corporations and are
maintained by the state) and the superiority of the private sector over the public sector. It
advocates privatisation, cuts in public spending, deregulation and tax cuts for businesses and
high earners.
This ideology
spread through the media from the 1980s , and the media have continued to play a key
role in its persistence through a decade of political and economic turmoil since the 2008
crash. They have done this largely via an acute amnesia about the causes of the crisis, an
amnesia that helped make policies like austerity, privatisation and corporate tax breaks appear
as common sense responses to the problems.
This amnesia struck at dizzying speed. My research carried out at Cardiff University shows
that in 2008 at the time of the banking collapse, the main explanations given for the problems
were financial misconduct ('greedy bankers'), systemic problems with the financial sector, and
the faulty free-market model. These explanations were given across the media spectrum,
with even the Telegraph and Sun complaining about a lack of regulation . Banking reform was
advocated across the board.
Fast-forward to April 2009, barely 6 months after the announcement of a £500
billion bank bailout.
A media hysteria was nowraging around Britain's deficit . While greedy bankers were still
taking some of the blame, the systemic problems in finance and the problems with the
free-market model had been forgotten. Instead, public profligacy had become the dominant
explanation for the deficit. The timeline of the crisis was being erased and
rewritten.
Correspondingly, financial and corporate regulation were forgotten. Instead, austerity
became the star of the show, eclipsing all other possible solutions to the crisis. As a
response to the deficit, austerity was mentioned 2.5 as many times as the next most covered
policy-response option, which was raising taxes on the wealthy. Austerity was mentioned 18
times more frequently than tackling tax avoidance and evasion. Although coverage of austerity
was polarized, no media outlet rejected it outright, and even the left-leaning press implicitly
(and sometimes explicitly) backed 'austerity lite'.
In 2010, the Conservative-Lib Dem government announced £99 billion in spending cuts
and £29 billion in tax increases per year by 2014-15. Having made these 'tough choices',
from 2011 the coalition wanted to focus attention away from austerity and towards growth (which
was, oops, being stalled by austerity). To do this, they pursued a zealously 'pro-business'
agenda, including privatisation, deregulation, cutting taxes for the highest earners, and
cutting corporation tax in 2011, 2012, 2013, and in 2015 and 2016 under a Conservative
government.
These measures were a ramped-up version of the kinds of reforms that had produced the
crisis in the first place. This fact, however, was forgotten. These 'pro-business' moves were
enthusiastically embraced by the media, far more so than austerity. Of the 5 outlets analysed
(The BBC, Telegraph, Sun, Guardian and Mirror), only the Guardian rejected them more frequently
than endorsing them.
The idea behind these policies is that what's good for business is good for everyone. If
businesses are handed more resources, freed from regulation and handed tax breaks, they will be
encouraged to invest in the economy, creating jobs and growth. The rich are therefore 'job
creators' and 'wealth creators'.
This is despite the fact that these policies have an impressive fail rate. Business
investment and productivity growth remain low, as corporations spend the savings not on
training and innovation but on share buy-backs and shareholder dividends. According to the
Financial Times, in 2014, the top 500 US companies
returned 95 per cent of their profits to shareholders in dividends and buybacks. Meanwhile,
inequality is spiralling and in the UK more than a million
people are using food banks .
Poverty and inequality, meanwhile, attracted surprising little media attention. Of my sample
of 1,133 media items, only 53 had a primary focus on living standards, poverty or inequality.
This
confirms other researchshowing a lack of media attention to these issues . Of these 53
items, the large majority were from the Guardian and Mirror. The coverage correctly identified
austerity as a primary cause of these problems. However, deeper explanations were rare. Yet
again, the link back to the 2008 bank meltdown wasn't made, let alone the long-term causes of
that meltdown. Not only that, the coverage failed even to identify the role of most of the
policies pursued since the onset of the crisis in producing inequality – such as
the bank bailouts, quantitative easing, and those 'pro-business' measures like corporation tax
cuts and privatisation.
And so it seems we are living with a hyper-amnesia , in which it is increasingly
difficult to reconstruct timelines and distinguish causes from effects. This amnesia has helped
trap us in a neoliberal groundhog day. The political consensus around the free market model
finally seems to be breaking. If we are to find a way out, we will need to have a lot more
conversations about how to organise both our media systems and our economies.
Tick-Tock.
It depends. Do you believe the worst can be avoided or do you believe the world is already
knee deep in all the things we're told to be afraid will happen? There is a big difference
between organizing for reform and organizing to break capture.
" Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand "
W.B. Yeats
I suppose we can take some succour from the fact that WWI (and the Spanish flu) seemed to
be a harbinger of worse to come but we're still here
The hyper-amnesia ground hog problem described in the post happens, in part, because the
'centre continues to hold'. It demonstrates the center can, and does, hold. We don't want the
centre to hold. We want it to disappear and get replaced by policies and perspectives keen on
an economy (and society) that works for all, not just some
I know what you're saying and I tend to agree. But the centre to Yeats (my interpretation,
anyway) is that there is a cultural centre both apart from but also part of the social
centre, and when that centre goes all hell breaks loose. Meaning of events becomes very
confused or impossible to understand on many levels.
Then, it's often the little people (and don't go making jokes about leprechauns) that get
crushed in the confusion.
We should reflect about the root causes of why our information is not informing us. How
can decades go by with the meme "smoking has not been conclusively proven to cause cancer" or
now "the science of climate change is inconclusive", not to mention countless similar horror
stories in pharma. Bullshit about the effectiveness of supply side economics is no
different.
Somehow we collectively need to expect and demand more objectivity from our information
sources. We fall for the fox guarding hen houses scam over and over, from TARP bailouts, to
FDA approvals to WMD claims. Not sure of the answer, but I know from talking with my boomer
parents, skepticism about information sources is not in the DNA of many information
consumers.
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we
tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the
truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to
ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never
get it back."
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
One of Sagan's best, I loaned this out to a not terribly thoughtful acquaintance and I was
told it was "too preachy".
I guess Sagan proves himself correct time and time again.
It is also worth noting that a number of newspapers lauded Hitler's rise to power –
they overlooked violence against Jews because the trains ran on time. Nor should we ignore
disinformation campaigns, led by newspapers (e.g. Hearst and cannabis). In general, each
media outlet is a reflection of its owners, most of whom are rich and adverse to any
suggestion that we "tax the rich."
I've come to the conclusion that we don't have a media anymore. I was watching MSNBC this
AM discuss the "missing" 1500 immigrant children. The agency responsible says it calls the
people who now have the kids, but most of the people don't call back within the 30-day
requirement period.
Now the next logical questions to ask the rep would be: What happens after 30 days? Do you
keep calling them? Do send out investigators?" But are these questions asked? No. Instead we
get speculation or non-answers. It's the same with every issue.
The internet is not any better. Many articles are just repeating what appears elsewhere
with no one checking the facts, even on respected sites. I also got a chain email today
regarding petition for a Constitutional Convention. The impetus is a list of grievances
ranging from "a congressman can retire after just one term with a full pension" to "children
of congressmen don't have to pay back college loans." I already knew most of the claims
weren't true but the 131 recipients of the organization I belong to didn't. I did find out
that this chain email has been circulating on the internet for five years and it is the work
of a conservative groups whose real aim is to stop abortion and make Christianity the law of
the land. I was not surprised.
I have said for years that there is no news on the news. And I have repeated this meme for
just as long: There is a reason why America is called Planet Stupid.
Now the next logical questions to ask the rep would be: What happens after 30 days? Do
you keep calling them? Do send out investigators?" But are these questions asked? No.
Instead we get speculation or non-answers. It's the same with every issue.
Even competent reporting takes practice, time, and effort, even money sometimes. The same
with even half way competent governing. Neither is rewarded, and are often punished, for
doing nowadays; asking as a follow-up question "did you call the local police or send over a
pair of ICE officers just to politely knock on the door?" Police do people checks all the
time. "I haven't see so and so for a week", or "my relative hasn't returned my calls for a
month, can you?" It is possible that the paperwork just got lost and asking the
guardians/family some questions personally would solve.
But all that is boring bovine excrement, which is just not done.
This post is disheartening in so many ways. Start with "media hysteria" -- adding yet
another glib coinage to hide a lack of explanation behind a simple but innapt analogy like
the endless "addictions" from which personifications of various abstract entities suffer.
This coinage presupposes a media sufficiently free to be possessed by hysteria. Dancing
puppets might with some art appear "hysterical". And the strange non-death of Neoliberalsm
isn't so strange or poorly understood in 2018 though the detailed explanation hasn't reached
as many as one might have hoped, including the authors of this brief post. Consider their
unhappy mashup of thoughts in a key sentence of the first paragraph: "This power has been
maintained with the help of a robust ideology centred on free markets (though in reality
markets are captured by corporations and are maintained by the state) and the superiority of
the private sector over the public sector." The tail of this sentence obviates the rest of
the post. And we ought not ignore the detail that Neoliberalism believes in the Market as a
solution to all problems -- NOT the 'free market' of neoclassical economics or libertarian
ideology.
From "media hysteria" the post postulates "amnesia" of a public convinced of "greedy
bankers" who need regulation. In the U.S. the propaganda was more subtle -- at least in my
opinion. We were fed the "bad apples" theory mocked in a brief series of media clips
presented in the documentary film "Inside Job". Those clips suggest a better explanation for
the swift media transitions from banking reform to balanced budgets and austerity with more
tax cuts for the wealthy than "amnesia" or "hyper-amnesia". The media Corporations are
tightly controlled by the same forces that captured Corporations and -- taking the phrase
"the superiority of the private sector over the public sector" in the sense that a superior
directs an inferior [rather than the intended(?) sense] -- direct and essentially own our
governments.
The essayist complains that poverty and the manifest failures of neoliberalism get little
critical attention, but she leads off, "It hasn't escaped many people's attention . . ."
The remarkable thing about public discourse and political and economic news reporting is
how superficial it has become, so devoid of a foundation of any kind in history or theory.
You can not have an effective critique of society or the economy or anything, if you do not
see a system with a history and think it matters. Neoliberalism has become what people say
when they think none of it really matters; it is all just noise.
Another thing to recall was how quickly talk of nationalizing banks evaporated. Even Paul
Krugman, among others were supporting the idea that "real capitalists nationalize".
Once LIBOR came down, and the lending channels began to reopen, the happy talk ensued and
the amnesia kicked in strongly.
I also think that the crisis of neoliberalism echos a problem caused by capitalism,
itself. I think David Harvey stated that "capitalism doesn't solve problems, it often just
moves them around".
The financial crisis and austerity have now manifested themselves into a media crisis of
elites and elite legitimacy (BREXIT, Trump's election, etc). The ability to manufacture
consent is running into increased difficulty. I don't think the financial crisis narrative
shift helped very much at all. A massive crime requires an equally massive cover-up,
naturally.
Why, it's almost as if 90% of all media outlets are owned by 5 multibillion dollar
conglomerates, controlled by the top 0.1%, for the purposes of protecting their unearned
parasitic power, and the employees making six-to-low-seven figures are on the Upton Sinclair
"paycheck demands I not understand it" model.
Or it's amnesia.
Matt Stoller tweet from August 2017, as germane now as ever: "The political crisis we are
facing is simple. American commerce, law, finance, and politics is organized around cheating
people."
A big thumbs up for that! Sobotka was a hero in very dark times.
As my brother-in-law puts it: The American Dream used to be "work hard in a useful job,
raise a family of citizens, retire with dignity, and hand the controls to the next
generation." Now? It's just "Win the lottery."
Problem is, "The Lottery" is right out of Shirley Jackson.
Agreed. The author is inclined to interpret at the level of cumulative effect -- apparent
forgetting -- and to ignore how fear -- of editors, of owners -- plays any role. Her proposed
unveiling of a coercive process becomes yet another veiling of it.
Sadly the narrative of details is lost to history The German landesbanks who had
guaranteed payments in loan pools in the USA were allowed to skirt thru crash and burn by the
agencies (moody s&p and your little fitch too) fake and shake ratings process But all
things German are magical Having lived thru NYC Mac Corp effective bankruptcy of man hat
tan..
it was amusing watching the hand wave given when the city of Berlin actually defaulted
.
My own view for what it is worth is that the Guardian pays some lip service to the plight
of the UK's " Deplorables ", but like most of it's readership does not really give a damn. A
state of being exacerbated by Brexit similar to the situation in the US with Trump. It's much
easier to imagine hordes of racist morons who inhabit places that you have no direct
experience of, than to actually go & take a look. It's also very easy to be in favour of
mass immigration if it does not effect your employment, housing & never likely to spoil
your early morning dawn chorus with a call to prayer.
Unfortunately it has been left to the Right to complain about such things as the Rotherham
abuse scandal, which involved a couple of thousand young girls, who I suspect are worth less
to some than perhaps being mistaken as a racist. There are also various groups made up of
Muslim women who protest about Sharia councils behaviour to their sex, but nobody in the
media is at all interested.
George Orwell noted that the middle class Left couldn't handle dealing with real working
class people, although there isn't the same huge gulf these days, I believe there is still a
vestige of it due to the British class system. The Fabians set up shop in the East End around
the turn of the last century & directly rubbed shoulders with the likes of Coster Mongers
– a combination that led to a strike that was one of the first success stories in the
attempt to get a few more crumbs than what was usually allowed to fall from the top
table.
As for Mirror readers, I suspect that the majority are either the voiceless or are too
busy fighting to avoid the fate of those who find themselves availing of food banks, while
being labelled as lazy scroungers all having expensive holidays, twenty kids, about thirty
grand a year, while being subjected to a now updated more vicious regime of that which was
illustrated by " I, Daniel Blake ".
If Neoliberalism is now being noticed I imagine that it is because of it's success in
working it's way up the food chain. After all these same Middle classes for the most part did
not care much for the plight of the poor during those Victorian values. Many could not wait
to employ maids of all work who slaved for up to fourteen hours a day with only Sunday
afternoon's off. The Suffragettes had a real problem with this as their relatively
comfortable lives would soon descend into drudgery without their servants.
Coincidentally, the NYT article on Austerity Britain is the closest I have read to an
accurate picture that I have seen for a good while.
It's also not a new thing. British media worship of neoliberalism has been growing since
the 1980s, at the same time as newspapers have been closing and media sources of all kinds
laying off their staff. 2008 was a temporary blip, and since the average journalist has the
attention span of a hamster, it was back to usual a few months later. Once the crash stopped
being "news" old patterns reasserted themselves. I wonder, incidentally, how many economics
journalists in the UK actually remember the time before neoliberalism?
"And so it seems we are living with a hyper-amnesia"
Consuming corporate media is increasingly a bizarro-world experience. Even something like
the Trump scandal/constitutional crisis/investigation seems like the arrogant internecine
warfare of corrupt factions of the establishment. Meanwhile, Americans are increasingly
living out of their cars.
The corporate media forgets the causes of the worst economic crisis since the Depression,
and it put Trump in a position to be elected. Trump was the Republican nominee because he was
relentlessly promoted by the media -- because ratings, because neoliberal rigged markets.
Break up the media monopolies, roll back Citizens United, enforce the fairness
doctrine.
" Consuming corporate media is increasingly a bizarro-world experience the Trump
scandal/constitutional crisis/investigation is nothing other than internecine warfare between
corrupt factions of the establishment."
I think there are several issues here for Americans, which can partially be applied to the
Europeans.
First, the American nation as whole only has short term memory. It is our curse.
Second, those with the money spend a lot of money, time and effort the late 19th century
covering up, massaging, or sometimes just creating lies about the past. American and British
businesses, governments, and even private organizations are masters at advertising and
propaganda. Perhaps the best on Earth.
Third, the people and the institutions that would counter this somewhat, independent
unions, multiple independent media, tenured professors at functioning schools, even
non-neoliberalized churches, and social organizations like bowling, crocheting, or heck, the
Masons would all maintain a separate continuing body of memory and knowledge.
Lastly, we are all freaking terrified somewhere inside us. Those relative few who
are not are fools, and most people, whatever their faults, truly are not fools. Even if they
act like one. Whatever your beliefs, position, or knowledge, the knowing of the oncoming
storm is in you. Money or poverty may not save you. The current set of lies, while they are
lies, gives everyone a comfortable known position of supporting or opposing in the same old,
same old while avoiding thinking about whatever catastrophe(s) and radical changes we all
know are coming. The lies are more relaxing than the truth.
Even if you are one of society's homeless losers, who would welcome some changes, would
you be comfortable thinking about just how likely it is to be very traumatic? Hiding behind
begging for change might be more comfortable.
"Even if you are one of society's homeless losers, who would welcome some changes, would
you be comfortable thinking about just how likely it is to be very traumatic? Hiding behind
begging for change might be more comfortable."
On the contrary, the upheaval the "losers" have been subjected to will be turned around
and used as a just cause for rectification. Trumatic consequences can be unpredictable and
this is why society should have socio-economic checks and balances to prevent an economic
system running amok. Commonsense that necessitates amnesia for neoliberalism to seem
viable.
1. Oligarchs having captured thoroughly the media, the legislatures and the judiciary, (as
well as large parts of what might be construed as "liberal" political organisations e.g. the
Democratic Party of the USA)
2. the seemingly inexorable trend to wealth concentration in the hands of said
oligarchs
..one asks oneself.."What is one to do?"
My own response, (and I acknowledge straight off its limited impact), is to do the
following:
1. support financially in the limited ways possible media channels such as Naked
Capitalism that do their level best to debunk the lies and deceptions perpetrated by the
oligarchs
2. support financially social organisations and structures that are genuinely citizen
based and focused on a sustainable future for all
3. Do very very limited monitoring of the oligarch's "lies and deceptions" (one needs to
understand one's enemies to have a chance to counter them) and try on a personal level, in
one's day to day interactions, to present counter arguments
We cannot throw in the towel. We must direct our limited financial resources and personal
efforts to constructive change, as, for the 99%..there are no "bunker" to run to when the
"proverbial" hits the fan..as it must in the fullness of time.
Yep. One has to go ahead and do what one can. It all makes a difference. Thanks for your
strategy, Peter Phillips. Limited impact is not no impact, and we don't have the luxury of
despairing because there is only a bit we can do.
Yet this has been going on forever – – this past Sunday, for the first time I
recall, I finally heard an accurate Real News story filed on the Bobby Kennedy assassination
(50th anniversary coming this June 6, 2018) by the BBC World Service.
They actually noted that there were multiple shooters, that Sen. Kennedy was shot from
behind, not the front where Sirhan was located, etc., etc.
I guess we do occasionally witness Real News – – – just that it takes 50
years or so to be reported . . .
So this geopolitical planning is unique To America? So... I would be shocked, shocked if China, Russia, or the Sunni/Shia diasporas
had similar plans.
Trump is non-establishment, both party establishments want him gone. He was against the Iraq War. I haven't seen evidence he
buys into expanding a US empire or joining a global one. Just another reason neocons want to get rid of him.
Mark Karlin: How much money has gone to the U.S. war on terror and what has been the impact of this expenditure?
Tom Engelhardt: The best figure I've seen on this comes from the Watson Institute's Costs of War Project at Brown University and
it's a staggering
$5.6 trillion , including certain future costs to care for this country's war vets. President Trump himself, with his usual sense
of accuracy, has inflated that number even more, regularly speaking of
$7
trillion being lost somewhere in our never-ending wars in the Greater Middle East. One of these days, he's going to turn out
to be right.
As for the impact of such an expenditure in the regions where these wars continue to be fought, largely nonstop, since they were
launched against a tiny group of jihadis just after September 11, 2001, it would certainly include: the spread of terror outfits
across the Middle East, parts of Asia, and Africa; the creation -- in a region previously autocratic but relatively calm -- of a
striking range of failed or failing states, of major cities that have been turned into absolute
rubble (with
no money in sight for serious
reconstruction), of internally
displaced people and waves of refugees at levels
that now match the moment after World War II, when significant parts of the planet were in ruins; and that's just to start down
a list of the true costs of our wars.
At home, in a far quieter way, the impact has been similar. Just imagine, for instance, what our American world would have been
like if any significant part of the funds that went into our fruitless, still spreading, now nameless conflicts had been spent on
America's crumbling infrastructure , instead of on the rise
of the national security state as the unofficial fourth branch of government. (At TomDispatch , Pentagon expert William Hartung
has estimated that approximately $1 trillion annually goes into that security state and, in the age of Trump, that figure is
again on the rise.)
Part of the trouble assessing the "impact" here in the U.S. is that, in this era of public demobilization in terms of our wars,
people are encouraged not to think about them at all and they've gotten remarkably little attention. So sorting out exactly how they've
come home -- other than completely obvious developments like the
militarization
of the police, the
flying of surveillance drones in our airspace, and so on -- is hard. Most people, for instance, don't grasp something I've long
written about at TomDispatch : that Donald Trump would have been inconceivable as president without those disastrous wars, those
trillions squandered on them and on the military that's fought them, and that certainly qualifies as "impact" enough.
What makes the U.S. pretension to empire different from previous empires?
As a start, it's worth mentioning that Americans generally don't even think of ourselves as an "empire." Yes, since the Soviet
Union imploded in 1991, our politicians and pundits have proudly called this country the "last" or "lone" superpower and the world's
most "exceptional" or "indispensable" nation, but an empire? No. You need to go someplace off the mainstream grid -- Truthout or
TomDispatch , for instance -- to find anyone talking about us in those terms.
That said, I think that two things have made us different, imperially speaking. The first was that post-1991 sense of ourselves
as the ultimate winner of a vast imperial contest, a kind of arms race of many that had gone on since European ships armed with cannon
had first broken into the world in perhaps the fifteenth century and began to conquer much of it. In that post-Soviet moment of triumphalism,
of what seemed to the top dogs in Washington like the ultimate win, a forever victory, there was indeed a sense that there had never
been and never would be a power like us. That inflated sense of our imperial self was what sent the geopolitical dreamers of the
George W. Bush administration off to, in essence, create a Pax Americana first in the Greater Middle East and then perhaps the world
in a fashion never before imagined, one that, they were convinced, would put the Roman and British imperial moments to shame. And
we all know, with the invasion of Iraq, just where that's ended up.
In the years since they launched that ultimate imperial venture in a cloud of hubris, the most striking difference I can see with
previous empires is that never has a great power still in something close to its imperial prime proven quite so incapable of applying
its military and political might in a way that would successfully advance its aims. It has instead found itself overmatched by underwhelming
enemy forces and incapable of producing any results other than destruction and further fragmentation across staggeringly large parts
of the planet.
Finally, of course, there's climate change -- that is, for the first time in the history of empires, the very well-being of the
planet itself is at stake. The game has, so to speak, changed, even if relatively few here have noticed.
Why do you refer to the U.S. as an "empire of chaos"?
This answer follows directly from the last two. The United States is now visibly a force for chaos across significant parts of
the planet. Just look, for instance, at the cities -- from
Marawi in the Philippines to
Mosul and
Ramadi
in Iraq,
Raqqa and
Aleppo
in Syria,
Sirte in Libya, and so on -- that have literally been -- a word I
want to bring into
the language -- rubblized, largely by American bombing (though with a helping hand recently from the bomb makers of the Islamic State).
Historically, in the imperial ages that preceded this one, such power, while regularly applied brutally and devastatingly, could
also be a way of imposing a grim version of order on conquered and colonized areas. No longer, it seems. We're now on a planet that
simply doesn't accept military-first conquest and occupation, no matter the guise under which it arrives (including the spread of
"democracy"). So beware the unleashing modern military power. It turns out to contain within it striking disintegrative forces on
a planet that can ill afford such chaos.
You also refer to Washington D.C. as a "permanent war capital" with the generals in ascension under Trump. What does that represent
for the war footing of the U.S.?
Well, it's obvious in a way. Washington is now indeed a war capital because the Bush administration launched not just a local
response to a relatively small group of jihadis in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, but what its top officials called a "Global War
on Terror" -- creating possibly the worst acronym in history: GWOT. And then they instantly began insisting that it could be applied
to at least 60 countries supposedly harboring terror
groups. That was 2001 and, of course, though the name and acronym were dropped, the war they launched has never ended. In those years,
the military, the country's (count 'em)
17
major intelligence agencies, and the
warrior
corporations of the military-industrial complex have achieved a kind of clout never before seen in the nation's capital. Their
rise has really been a bipartisan affair in a city otherwise riven by politics as each party tries to outdo the other in promoting
the financing of the national security state. At a moment when putting money into just about anything else that would provide security
to Americans (think health care) is always a desperate struggle, funding the Pentagon and the rest of the national security state
continues to be a given. That's what it means to be in a "permanent war capital."
In addition, with Donald Trump, the generals of America's losing wars have gained a kind of prominence in Washington that was
unknown in a previously civilian capital. The head of the Defense Department, the White House chief of staff, and (until recently
when he was succeeded by an even more militaristic civilian) the national security advisor were all generals of those wars -- positions
that, in the past, with rare exceptions, were considered civilian ones. In this sense, Donald Trump was less making history with
the men he liked to refer to as "
my generals " than channeling it.
What is the role of bombing in the U.S. war-making machine?
It's worth remembering, as I've written in the past, that from the beginning the war on terror has been, above all (and despite
full-scale invasions and occupations using hundreds of thousands of U.S. ground troops), an
air war . It started that way. On September 11, 2001, after all, al-Qaeda sent its air force (four hijacked passenger jets) and
its precision weaponry (19 suicidal hijackers) against a set of iconic buildings in the U.S. Those strikes -- only one of them failed
when the passengers on a single jet fought back and it crashed in a field in Pennsylvania -- may represent the most successful use
of strategic bombing (that is, air power aimed at the civilian population of, and morale in, an enemy country) in history. At the
cost of a mere $400,000 to $500,000 , Osama
bin Laden began an air war of provocation that has never ended.
The U.S. has been bombing, missiling, and
drone-assassinating ever since. Last year, for instance, U.S. planes dropped an estimated
20,000 bombs just on the Syrian city
of
Raqqa , the former "capital" of the Islamic State, leaving next to nothing standing. Since the first American planes began dropping
bombs (and cluster munitions ) in
Afghanistan in October 2001, the U.S. Air Force has been in the skies ceaselessly -- skies by the way over countries and groups that
lack any defenses against air attacks whatsoever. And, of course, it's been a kind of rolling disaster of destruction that has left
the equivalent of World Trade Center tower after tower of dead civilians in those lands. In other words, though no one in Washington
would ever say such a thing, U.S. air power has functionally been doing Osama bin Laden's job for him, conducting not so much a war
on terror as a strange kind of war for terror, one that only promotes the conditions in which it thrives best.
What role did the end of the draft play in enabling an unrestrained U.S. empire of war?
It may have been the crucial moment in the whole process. It was, of course, the decision of then-president Richard Nixon in
January 1973 , in
response to a country swept by a powerful antiwar movement and a military in near rebellion as the Vietnam War began to wind down.
The draft was ended, the all-volunteer military begun, and the American people were largely separated from the wars being fought
in their name. They were, as I said above, demobilized. Though at the time, the U.S. military high command was doubtful about the
move, it proved highly successful in freeing them to fight the endless wars of the twenty-first century, now being referred to by
some in the Pentagon (according to the Washington Post ) not as "permanent wars" or even, as General David Petraeus put it, a "
generational struggle
," but as "
infinite war ."
I've lived through
two periods of public war mobilization in my lifetime: the World War II era, in which I was born and in which the American people
mobilized to support a global war against fascism in every way imaginable, and the Vietnam War, in which Americans (like me as a
young man) mobilized against an American war. But who in those years ever imagined that Americans might fight their wars (unsuccessfully)
to the end of time without most citizens paying the slightest attention? That's why I've called the losing generals of our endless
war on terror (and, in a sense, the rest of us as well) " Nixon's
children ."
17 major intelligence agencies. For fuck's sake! It's not seventeen – it is SIXTEEN! ;-)
Looney
P.S. I hate re-posting shit or using the same joke twice, but THIS is worth re-posting (from January 13, 2017): U.S. intelligence agencies contend that Moscow waged a multifaceted campaign of hacking and other actions All Democrats, from our own MDB to Hillary and 0bama, have been citing the "
17 intelligence agencies
" that agree with their ridiculous claims.
Here's the list of "The Magnificent Seventeen", but (spoiler alert!) there are actually only SIXTEEN INTEL AGENCIES, but who
counts? The highlighted agencies have nothing to do with Hacking, Elections, Golden Showers, or whatever sick lies the Libtards
have come up with.
Each Agency's responsibilities are very clearly defined by Law and 13 out of the "17 agencies" have absolutely nothing to do
with the DNC, Wikileaks, Elections, Hillary's e-mails, the Clinton Foundation, the Russian Hacking, etc.
Twenty-Fifth Air Force - Air Force Intel only
Intelligence and Security Command (US Army) – Army Intel only
Central Intelligence Agency is prohibited by Law to conduct any activities within the US!!!
Coast Guard Intelligence – Coast Guard, really?
Defense Intelligence Agency – Military Intel only
Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (Dept. of Energy) – Nukes, Nuclear Plants
Office of Intelligence and Analysis (Homeland Security)
Bureau of Intelligence and Research - State Dept. Intel
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (Treasury) – Treasury and Hacking/Elections? Hmm
Office of National Security Intelligence (DEA) – Drug Enforcement, really?
Intelligence Branch, FBI (DOJ)
Marine Corps Intelligence Activity - Marine Corps Intel only
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (Dept. of Defense) – Satellites, Aerial Intel
National Reconnaissance Office (Dept. of Defense) – Defense Recon Only
NSA
Office of Naval Intelligence Navy Defense – Navy only
On the rare occasions when the US halfheartedly admits that, somehow, mistakes might have been made, it cannot evade employing
important US citizenish "core values" like hypocricy and psychological projection.
Four days ago an outstanding example of this type of embarrassment,
Russia's Moral Hypocrisy , was posted by Colonel
James McDonough, US Army attaché to Poland. Its urgent bleatings display the inadequacy and extremely low level of cohesion to
which US propaganda has fallen. The short version: the US fights for all good against all bad, and the Russians disagree because
they are very bad and also mean people.
Two days ago, Colonel Cassad posted a response to McDonough's piece which skewered it like a kebab. Using a
nota bene format, each point is considered and then crushed
into a paste. Even via the Yandex machine translation, the well-deserved kicking to the curb comes through loud and clear.
Wars are always about money and control. The war machine supports so many jobs in the US from shipyards to consulting. It's
a way to pump cash into a system that essentially died after the 2001 crash.
During a memorial day conversation today, "But you live in the evil empire and reap the benefits, why are you complaining about
the democrats. Can't you see the black mark on your soul is more important because you support the Empire on either side of the
so called two party system."
More divide & conquer BS the commies are belching now that they've been caught "red handed".
If it was a family member resolve yourself that you will have to just deal with it. If only a friend or acquaintance, resolve
yourself that there may come a time in the not to distant future you will have to slit their throat lest they slit yours.
Morbid as it maybe, nmewn is still correct. It's kinda like the saying, " Two people can keep a secret, as long as one of them
is dead." You cannot truly depend on or trust anyone, except yourself. And often times family can be worse than friends.
Well, what do want me to say?...lol...I know we're all thinking the same thing, we've all had the very same conversations with
these assholes whether friends or family. They are unreachable.
Hey, don't kill the guy pointing out the elephant in the middle of the room ;-)
It's not sixteen either, it was three ...the CIA ( Brennan ) the FBI ( Comey at the time) and the NSA which in my opinion was
in a go-along-to-get-along position. Seventeen was a lie when Hillary first uttered it. "The [intelligence community assessment] was a coordinated product from three agencies: CIA, NSA and the FBI, not all 17 components
of the intelligence community," said former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper during a congressional
hearing in May. "Those three under the aegis of my former office."
He spoke the truth (that time) probably not wanting another perjury charge ;-)
It's the attitude. The American political leaders have this idea of righteousness and exceptionalism. They think they'll go
around the world telling everyone else what to do. I've got two words for them - Fuck-off:
This article could have been written by a second-year political science undergraduate at a U.S. public university. This adds
a sum total of zero to the public understanding of the rise of American imperialism.
To state the obvious; the CIA has deeply humiliated the American people in their attempt to tie the American people to be responsible
for the CIA's crimes against humanity across the world.
The CIA appears to be the world's greatest threat to peace and prosperity. It is the penultimate terrorist organization, being
the direct or indirect creator of all other terrorist organizations. It also appears to be the world's penultimate illegal drug
smuggler and pusher making all other illegal drug trading possible and instigating the horrors of addiction and suffering around
the world.
If I believed that the CIA was working in any way on behalf of the US government and the American people then it would be sad
and shameful indeed. However, it is my belief that the CIA instead was captured long ago, as was the secret military operations
and now works for a hidden power that wants to dominate or failing that, destroy humanity.
It's those Select Highly Compartmentalized Criminal Pure Evil Rogue Elements at the Deep State Top that have had control since
the JFK Execution that have entrenched themselves for decades & refuse to relinquish Control.
The Agency is Cancer. There should be no question about the CIA's future in the US.
Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long,
that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes
Against The American People.
The author seems comfortable finding fault with Bush and Trump but can't muster up a criticism of Obama (the Cal Ripken of
presidential war mongers), Clinton, Holder, et al.
What a dichotomy. On the one hand, America self-righteously proclaiming it is the one protecting everyone's freedom, while
at the same time making war and spying and oppressing others. On the other hand, seems like America is at war with everyone to
have such a large military and 17 spy agencies, and more people in prison than any other country in the world. Really sounds like
America has got some serious problems.
Note, a majority of the Muslims living close to Iraq still held a positive view of the U.S. even after the 1990-1991 attack
on Iraq. And after 12 years of starvation sanctions, even denying Iraq baby formula with the claim that it "can be used to make
weapons". And after the UK and US bombing Iraq on average once a week for those 12 years, targeting water refineries so Iraqis
had to drink dirty water, and power plants so there was no air conditioning in the blistering summer heat. Causing the death of
half a million children, as confirmed by the U.S. ambassador to the UN, which State Secretary Madeleine Albright said was "worth
it".
Even after that mass murder, 60% of Gulf residents were generally positive toward the U.S.
"Clash of cultures," right? There wasn't much Islamism at all, except the anger directed at thieving puppet rulers installed
after the European empires withdrew. Arabs, who were mostly secular, had always loved the U.S. as an anti-imperialist country.
Thus they couldn't understand when the U.S. backed the Zio invasion of Palestine. And then started sanctioning and attacking every
Middle Eastern nation that supported the Palestinians.
The U.S. used to have many "Arabist" diplomats, those who wanted to work with Arab nationalists, especially against the Soviets.
But the pro-Arab diplomats were sidelined by the media-backed neocon line, where everything was about who were for or against
the Palestinians. Saddam Hussein in Iraq had been secular and pro-American, but he gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide
bombers - these families saw their homes razed with all their possessions, with just an hour's notice, by the Israelis. For the
crime of giving these destitute people some money, all of Iraq was targeted.
No wonder the Arabs started hating the U.S. Still even after the Iraq invasion in 2003, most Arabs just want to be left alone
by the U.S. But that is not allowed. Arab nationalism was destroyed in favor of puppet regimes.
We don't blame the British people anymore than the world should blame the
American people. It is these political machines filled with antisocial
sociopaths and psychopaths that gravitate to government. These people have
the following tendencies
- Power Monger - Regularly break or flouts the law
- Politician - Constantly lies and deceives others
- Conquer - Is impulsive and doesn't plan ahead
- Warlike - Can be prone to fighting and aggressiveness
- Destructive - Has little regard for the safety of others
- Deadbeat - Irresponsible, can't meet financial obligations
- Repressive - Doesn't feel remorse or guilt for what is done to people
They are all, first and foremost EXPLOITATIVE, manipulative, gas
lighting, lacking EMPATHY, regret remorse or guilt, grandiose, haughty
arrogant behavior, an overwhelming sense of entitlement, power addicted,
ruthless (however every psychopath will describe this as 'determined'),
pathological liars. Most psychopaths are NOT physically violent, the
most successful ones pass in society and sit in positions of power over
a few or millions of people. Psychopaths will only put out as little
energy as it takes to exploit and manipulate a potential partner whether
romantic or business but it's a succession of cronies and hangers on
that do the work for them as psychopaths are notoriously LAZY.
Psychopaths hurt people because it gives them a sense of overwhelming
power. The more the victim REACTS, the better for the psychopath. They
are emotionally rewarded by the pain they cause.
Imagine the psychopath who has the ability to cause reactions in
millions of people.
I see Wiki as MSM "fact checking" disinfo propaganda. VERY
important to the MSM machine.
I have--and know others who have
repeatedly contributed content which was promptly removed from
Wiki entries.
Even Snopes has been compromised.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-sno
Snopes was founded by a couple who ran it as an authentic
grass-roots research and information platform. A few years ago it
was infiltrated, the couple was split up and it's now part of the
propaganda machine.
It was discovered the Snopes was partly funded by an entity
associated with
CIA's Psych Hop
operation that
sends a flock of people to sites like Wiki to control information
that is placed there, which is entirely the opposite of the "open
source" that Wiki advertises itself to be.
Ironically but not unsurprisingly, Snopes partnered
with Facebook in it's fake anti-"fake news" campaign, which is
really just shutting down anything that disagrees with the
establishment's official narrative, which involves YouTube and
Twitter other social media platforms.
A recent literacy project is an effort to help teach students
how to distinguish what's real and what's fake in the age of
digital communications.
"That was a time when students used the internet to do research
and struggled with recognizing truth from fiction. It was well
before "fake news" was mentioned and the country found itself
facing real questions about whether "fake news" existed, what it
was or if it affected the results of the 2016 presidential
election." For those who pay attention only to MainStreamMedia,
the "fake news" noise during the 2016 election was their
introduction to "fake news".
Countries all over the world have recently enacted legislation
against fake news with high fines and prison sentences (Malaysia,
Egypt, Brazil, Honduras, Italy, Germany, France, UK).
We are now told that "fake news," specifically in the form of
alternative media (and primarily "alt-right" media) is the great
new danger facing the public.
A signal to us is the extreme campaign against the alternative
and inconvenient "fake" media. But the charges of "fake news" are
being used as an excuse to tighten censorship in the US and all
over the world.
Dolan's pieces on censorship and hate speech in the vid above
are also really great.
"... There is in the US a concerted effort to praise capitalism as some sort of god-given system and to defame all other systems. ..."
"... "Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." ..."
"... "The problem this essay addresses can be framed in terms of two quotations from Alexis de Tocqueville. The first comes from his famous speech in the French Chamber of Deputies just prior to the outbreak of the Revolution of 1848: "We are sleeping on a volcano .do you not see that the earth is beginning to tremble. The wind of revolt rises; the tempest is on the horizon." The second is from Democracy in America: "When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness." ..."
"... "These fools in Wall Street think they can go on forever! They can't!" ..."
"... "a giant suction pump had by 1929 to 1930 drawn into a few hands an increasing proportion of currently produced wealth. This served then as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied themselves the kind of effective demand for their products which would justify reinvestment of the capital accumulation in new plants. In consequence as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When the credit ran out, the game stopped" ..."
By Rob Johnson, Institute for New Economic Thinking President,
Senior Fellow and Director, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute and Thomas Ferguson, Director of Research, Institute for New
Economic Thinking. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website
...
The problem this essay addresses can be framed in terms of two quotations from Alexis de Tocqueville. The first comes from his famous
speech in the French Chamber of Deputies just prior to the outbreak of the Revolution of 1848: "We are sleeping on a volcano .do
you not see that the earth is beginning to tremble. The wind of revolt rises; the tempest is on the horizon." The second is from
Democracy in America : "When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness."
In 2018, the darkness is all too palpable: A chain of economic reverses that no prominent economists, central bankers, or policymakers
anticipated has combined with other shocks from technology, wars, and migrations to produce the political equivalent of the perfect
storm. The world financial meltdown of 2008 set the cyclone spinning. As citizens watched helplessly while their livelihoods, savings,
and hopes shriveled, states and central banks stepped in to rescue the big financial institutions most responsible for the disaster.
But recovery for average citizens arrived only slowly and in some places barely at all, despite a wide variety of policy experiments,
especially from central banks.
The cycle of austerity and policy failure has now reached a critical point. Dramatic changes in public opinion and voting behavior
are battering long entrenched political parties in many countries. In many of the world's richest countries, more and more citizens
are losing faith in the very ideas of science, expertise, and dispassionate judgment -- even in medicine, as witness the battles
over vaccines in Italy, the US, and elsewhere. The failure of widely heralded predictions of immediate economic disaster when the
UK voted to leave the European Union and Donald Trump became President of the United States has only fanned the skepticism.
Placing entire responsibility for this set of plagues on bad economic theory or deficient policy evaluation does not make sense.
Power politics, contending interests, ideologies, and other influences all shaped events. But from the earliest days of the financial
collapse, reflective economists and policymakers nourished some of the same suspicions as the general public. Like the Queen of England,
they asked plaintively, "Why did no one see it coming?"
Answers were not long in arriving. Critics, including more than a few Nobel laureates in economics, pointed to a series of propositions
and attitudes that had crystallized in economic theory in the years before the crisis hit.
[1] Economists had closed ranks as though in a phalanx, but the crisis showed how fragile these tenets were. They included:
A resolute unwillingness to recognize that fundamental uncertainty shadows economic life in the real world. Neglect of the roles
played by money, credit, and financial systems in actual economies and the inherent potential for instability they create. A fixation
on economic models emphasizing full or nearly complete information and tendencies for economies either to be always in equilibrium
or heading there, not just in the present but far into the indefinite future. A focus on supply as the key to economic growth and,
increasingly after 1980, denials that economies could even in theory suffer from a deficiency of aggregate demand. Supreme confidence
in the price system as the critical ordering device in economies and the conviction that getting governments and artificial barriers
to their working out of the way was the royal road to economic success both domestically and internationally.
Initially, debates over this interlocking system of beliefs mostly sparked arguments about the usefulness of particular tools
and analytical simplifications that embodied the conventional wisdom: Dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models; notions of a
"representative agent" in macroeconomics and the long run neutrality of money; icy silence about interactions between monetary rates
of interest and ruling rates of profit, or the failure of labor markets to clear.
Increasingly, however, skeptics wondered if the real problems with economics did not run deeper than that. They began to ask if
something was not radically wrong with the structure of the discipline itself that conduced to the maintenance of a narrow belief
system by imposing orthodoxies and throwing up barriers to better arguments and dissenting evidence.
The empirical evidence now seems conclusive: Yes.
"Top 5" Dominance for Promotion and Tenure
Studies by James Heckman demonstrate the critical gatekeeping role of five so-called "top journals" in recruitment and promotions
within economics as a field.
[2] Four of the journals -- the American Economic Review , the Journal of Political Economy , the Quarterly
Journal of Economics , and the Review of Economic Studies -- are Anglo-American centered and published in the US or
the UK as is the fifth, Econometrica , though it is sponsored by the Econometric Society, which has long involved scholars
from Scandinavia and other countries.
Heckman's research shows that the number of Top 5 (T5) articles published by candidates plays a crucial role in the evaluation
of candidates for promotion and tenure. This is true not only in leading departments but more generally in the field, though the
influence of the count weakens in lower ranked institutions.
The Great Disjunction
Heckman compares citations in Top 5 journals with articles frequently cited by leading specialists in various fields and with
publication histories of Nobel laureates and winners of the Clark Medal. He is crystal clear that many important articles appear
in non-T5 journals -- a finding supported by other studies.
[3] This evidence, he argues, highlights a "fundamental contradiction" within the whole field: "Specialists who themselves publish
primarily in field journals defer to generalist journals to screen quality of their colleagues in specialty fields."
Citations as Pernicious Measures of Quality in Economics
Heckman draws attention to the increase in the number of economists over time and the relative stability of the T5. He argues
that his findings imply that the discipline's "reluctance to distribute gatekeeping responsibility to high quality non-T5 Journals
is inefficient in the face of increasing growth of numbers of people in the profession and the stagnant number of T5 publications."
Other scholars who have scrutinized what citations actually measure underscore this conclusion. Like Heckman, they know that citation
indices originated from efforts by libraries to decide what journals to buy. They agree that transforming " journal impact
factors" into measures of the quality of individual articles is a grotesque mistake, if only because of quality variation
within journals and overlaps in average quality among them. Counts of journal articles also typically miss or undercount books and
monographs, with likely serious effects on both individual promotion cases and overall publication trends in the discipline. As Heckman
observes, the notion that books are not important vehicles for communication in economics is seriously mistaken.
Analytical efforts to explain who gets cited and why are especially thought provoking. All serious studies converge on the conclusion
that raw counts can hardly be taken at face value.
[4] They distort because they are hopelessly affected by the size of fields (articles in bigger fields get more citations) and
bounced around by self-citations, varying numbers of co-authors, "halo effects" leading to over-citation of well-known scholars,
and simple failures to distinguish between approving and critical references, etc. One inventory of such problems, not surprisingly
by accounting professors, tabulates more than thirty such flaws.
[5]
But cleaning up raw counts only scratches the surface. Heckman's study raised pointed questions about editorial control at top
journals and related cronyism issues. Editorial control of many journals turns over only very slowly and those sponsored by major
university departments accept disproportionately more papers from their own graduates.
[6] Interlocking boards are also fairly common, especially among leading journals.
[7] Carlo D'Ippoliti's study of empirical citation patterns in Italy also indicates that social factors within academia figure
importantly: economists are prone to cite other economists who are their colleagues in the same institutions, independently of the
contents of their work, but they are even more likely to cite economists closer to their ideological and political positions.
[8] Other research confirms that Italy is not exceptional and that, for example, the same pattern shows up in the debates over
macroeconomics in the US and the UK after 1975.
[9]
Other work by Jakob Kapeller, et al., and D'Ippoliti documents how counting citations triggers a broad set of pathologies that
produces major distortions.
[10] Investing counts with such weighty significance, for example, affects how both authors and journal editors behave. Something
uncomfortably close to the blockbuster syndrome characteristic of Hollywood movies takes root: Rather than writing one major article
that would be harder to assimilate, individual authors have strong incentives to slice and dice along fashionable lines. They mostly
strive to produce creative variations on familiar themes. Risk-averse gatekeepers know they can safely wave these products through,
while the authors run up their counts. Journal editors have equally powerful incentives: They can drive up their impact factors by
snapping up guaranteed blockbusters produced by brand names and articles that embellish conventional themes. Kapeller, et al. suggest
that this and several other negative feedback loops they discuss lead to a form of crowding out, which has particularly pernicious
effects on potential major contributions since those are placed at a disadvantage by comparison with articles employing safer, more
familiar tropes.
[11] The result is a strong impetus to conformism, producing a marked convergence of views and methods.
These papers, and George Akerlof in several presentations, also show that counting schemes acutely disadvantage out-of-favor fields,
heterodox scholars, and anyone interested in issues and questions that the dominant Anglo-Saxon journals are not.
[12] This holds true even though, as Kapeller et al. observe, articles that reference some contrary viewpoints actually attract
more attention, conditioning on appearance in the same journal -- an indication that policing the field, not simply quality control,
is an important consideration in editorial judgment. One consequence of this narrowing is its weirdly skewed international impact.
Reliance on the current citations system originated in the US and UK, but has now spread to the rest of Europe and even parts of
Asia, including China. But T5 journals concentrate on articles that deal with problems that economists in advanced Anglo-Saxon lands
perceive to be important; studies of smaller countries or those at different stages of development face higher publication hurdles.
The result is a special case of the colonial mind in action: economics departments outside the US and UK that rely on "international"
standards advantage scholars who focus their work on issues relevant to other countries rather than their own.
Oh wait, Fourcade and her colleagues are sociologists, not economists, so no reason to consider their research and thinking.
Also, and not for nothing, she and they are French, and read Pierre Bourdieu who has done a lot of work on the sociology of academics,
focused on France but widely applicable.
And here's something interesting; there is no mention of the funding of economics at universities and colleges. So, no mention
of the hundreds of millions the filthy rich have poured into the field. Of course, they heatedly deny that matters. A recent tweet
from a Geroge Mason/Mercatus prof was livid at the very suggestion that Koch money influenced hiring decisions.
And that's before we get into the gendered nature of economics, or it's political usage by ideologically-driven politicians
looking for "experts" to support their preconceptions.
There is a lot more and someone needs to say it out loud in clear, uncoded language.
Just a thought line here. I have heard and read conservatives say that "Politics is downstream from culture" and I get what
they are saying. You change the culture and that predetermines the politics that you get. In reading this article, the thought
struck me that perhaps the reason that economics as a profession has been corrupted so badly is that maybe conservatives consider
government to be downstream of economics. Thus you control what economics theories are permitted to be discussed and that gives
them the governments that they want.
I support your contention. There is in the US a concerted effort to praise capitalism as some sort of god-given system and
to defame all other systems. Venezuela's current problems are due to socialism, not bad management, of course. Of course, since
the wealthy are doing oh so well under the status quo, they are bound to favor it, but they are not just favoring it, they are
nailing it down onto our culture.
There is in the US a concerted effort to praise capitalism as some sort of god-given system and to defame all other
systems.
The Marxist economist Richard Wolff made the claim that economists are simply cheerleaders for capitalism in an interview on
Chapo Trap House, He elaborated and substantiated this claim by saying that business schools had to be founded because economics
departments were useless as a method of educating a cohort of business specialists.
Very succinct and thoughtful indeed. Remember Ronald Reagan's now infamous, "Government is the Problem" mantra. The real cultural
warriors were the neoliberal terrorists who are hell bent on commodifying the entire planet for their own exploitation- masked
in the language of "freedom" and "democracy".
This line of thought is also important in that your framing cuts to the core of the cognitive problem attempting to deal with
economics, namely, it is a religion. I would define a religion as a system of faith and worship that is driven by a particular
interest. All the wordy-ness and arm waiving is just an attempt to obfuscate this simple truth. Persecution of the unfaithful
is also a dead giveaway.
This whole notion that the current reigning economics profession is ready, or attempting to "see the light" is somewhat amusing,
or in another sense should be insulting considering the social damage they have caused, and are continuing to inflict on the broader
citizenry. Burning at the stake is more appropriate, and maybe these slight rumblings of contrition are a sign that some might
be getting worried that their "economic" program has gone too far.
When what goes on in the human mind looses connection to events in the real world, changes must be made in order to remain
sane. The current orthodoxy is also ultimately doomed to failure in that what is the point of creating and maintaining a deluded
and demoralized citizenry? That is a recipe for internal stagnation and external conquest. It would only be a successful strategy
if the elite are able to move on after the broader society falters and fails. That thought is almost too cynical to contemplate.
But that might explain why the .001% remains the .001%. The current economic priests are starting to feel the pressure because
their flocks are beginning to realize that their everyday experience no longer matches the sermons they receive.
Following Rev Kev's point and Ed Walker's third paragraph, have there been any studies of the sources of gifts, underwriting,
and other purchases of academic work at the most "influential" economics and business economics departments?
In the academic side of the economics profession, it would seem to be prudent to "go with the flow."
Even the economists who recognized problems in 2008, such as Steve Keen and Dean Baker, are not celebrated.
In our society, it seems more likely that some powerful group or individual wants to do something and then proceeds to find
an economist to support that action, via an editorial or media appearance, perhaps it is "free" trade, more immigration, easy
money, tight money, quantitative easing, outsourcing, insourcing, charter schools, or austerity.
I suspect there are economists who attempt to accurately anticipate economic events.
But they work for hedge funds and private wealth management firms.
And what is the incentive for a prominent public economist to warn of economic problems that may have been caused by government
and well-connected interests?
If someone, such as Alan Greenspan, gave early notice of sub-prime/mortgage backed security issues how would he have been better
off?
It suggests a central banker career strategy that, if one observes a large economic problem brewing, retire and publish your
book before the SHTF.
If the career central banker actually warned/took actions to circumvent a financial bubble and the bubble popped anyway, they
could be tagged as a goat for causing the crisis.
Maybe the economics profession is functioning as one would expect?
One has to wonder, if the elite economists who have defined the parochial and narrow scope of what capitalism is, how it works,
and who wins and loses in the system, and maybe in particular it's late 20th Century form, neroliberalism, had maybe expanded
their self-serving views to include a Marxian critique and analysis of they might not had been so stupid?
That's not to say the Marx had all the answers, but is only to say that if you presuppose the outcome you want and buttress
it with only the information that supports (no matter how poorly) those outcomes, you end up with crisis and the contradictions
within capitalism resulting in the failures described above.
Universities and Econ departments don't allow the wide critical view needed into their schools, and no matter what you think
of Marx and his ideas, they should at least be the starting point in the discussion when approaching economic policy. The right
wing shift in the governments and the people's of the world is not some unexpected outcome but is directly related to a system
that builds in economic disparity, short-term planning (due to emphasis on next quarters profits and stock price), and an emphasis
on winner take all rather than human needs.
It's not "the economy, stupid." It"s the stupid system.
The problem with the American system is that its founding principles, that all men are created equal, and are endowed with
certain, God given, unalienable rights, runs in contradiction to the chosen economic models of building society. Slavery and Capitalism
are antithetical to these sentiments. Capitalism might be workable if restrained and heavily regulated, but why bother with that
because human corruption will always find a way to undermine such a system; it is inherently weak and guarantees suffering will
be born by the masses- Brexit will provide the perfect example as predicted by Yves.
A heavily regulated capitalism is socialism by another name.
The same, self-serving arguments are also made about war. The thought that humans could live in peace is treated as some unrealistic
and insane idea. Instead of selecting from the human population for cooporation and peace-loving sensibilities, the minority sociopathic
murders are allowed to run wild.
Real human "progress" will be made when the peace faction gains supremacy. But that is impossible as long as the economic system
upon which all human subsistence depends remains entrenched in competition and striving to hoard against fears of scarcity.
FDR had it right, although imperfect, society was moving in the right direction. We live in a world of abundance that is being
squandered. The only way to avoid ultimate destruction is to embrace this abundance as stewards and conservators instead of fearful
exploiters.
Conserve the world by embracing sustainable living. Now that is a powerful political message. So powerful, it will be met with
the full force of the sociopathic murders currently in charge of human societies.
The equality stuff is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The latter is specifically devoted to protecting
the interests of property holders, specifically including slavers. This is not surprising. The Founders were heavily influenced
by John Locke. Locke was a slaver himself
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2709512?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
. And remember that Lockean ideas are based on protecting private property from the random predation of absolute monarchs.
That's an amazing slip of the keys. It explains a ton too. I love that it combines the term which the people discussed in this
article usually deride with the name of the last Roman emperor who is renowned for extravagance and tyranny.
I agree with your comment whole heartedly.
But:"the name of the last Roman emperor who is renowned for extravagance and tyranny."(& please forgive my quibble) Nero was certainly
not the last emperor to have had such characteristics.
(Elagabalus springs to mind)
It's been said that you can tell how dominated economics is by a particular minority of society, by the economists' word for
phenomena where workers are paid more for their labor being "disease". As in Baumol's Disease for example.
Both sides of the political divide often go awry simply because they refuse to acknowledge the role of human nature. We mere
mortals know this as we are the full recipients of the "free market," the good, the bad, and the extremely ugly. The likes of
Alan Greenspan in the rarified air strata were shocked, shocked, shocked! I bring you a small excerpt from Mr. Greenspan's testimony
before the Government Oversight Committee of the House of Representatives. Still clueless, he does acknowledge a flaw:
Pressed by Waxman, Greenspan conceded a more serious flaw in his own philosophy that unfettered free markets sit at the root
of a superior economy.
"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they
were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," Greenspan said.
Waxman pushed the former Fed chief, who left office in 2006, to clarify his explanation.
"In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working," Waxman said.
"Absolutely, precisely," Greenspan replied. "You know, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I have been going
for 40 years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well."
In many of the world's richest countries, more and more citizens are losing faith in the very ideas of science, expertise,
and dispassionate judgment – even in medicine, as witness the battles over vaccines in Italy, the US, and elsewhere.
Might be believed by some, others might believe that more and more citizens are sceptical about the practioners ability to
provide expertise and dispassionate judgment. From my own perspective I do believe in science, expertise and dispassionate judgment
but I don't believe that many professional economists have much expertise (outside of knowledge of basic statistics and statistics
software) or that they practice dispassionate judgment.
Pharmaceutical companies are not in business to heal people, they are in business -> They do whatever they legally can to make
money and they even put pressure on the legislative to get more opportunities to legally make more money.
The article contains this link to the Lancet relating to "the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research": https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1/fulltext
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted
by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together
with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.
If we looked and any other (social) scientific discipline, we'd get the same result.
The articles from medium and The Lancet you link highlight the problems well enough, the system is corrupt from top to bottom.
Another examples of where misguided emphasis on juicing "metrics" (for personal gain) rather than taking one's time to develop
expertise and do things correctly is literally killing people, or simply ruining lives (as if that is some consolation).
Economies are inherently cyclical. Keynesianism, in its original incarnation, envisaged surpluses during economic expansions
to offset the fiscal deficits provoked by recessions. But surpluses are a distant memory -- now it's pedal to the metal all the
time, just to keep a becalmed, debt-choked economy treading water.
Credit is also procyclical. It was severely rationed during and after the 2008 meltdown. Now covenant-lite bonds prevail for
corporate financing, while individuals can get 3 percent down FHA loans to buy houses at prices that exceed the 2006 peak, with
33 times leverage. Prudent!
What role can academics play in this endless sisyphean tragedy? None, probably. Warning of recession invites career risk for
economists, so most of them just won't do it. Like the Hazmat team, economists show up after the train wreck to help with the
cleanup. Federal Reserve economists are engineering that crack-up right now, with their fruitcake bond dumping campaign.
By 2020, they'll be tanned, rested and ready for their next exciting outing. :-)
As others have stated, there are economists out there who have already seen through the current dogmas.
Michael Hudson is one and another that comes to mind is Chilean economist Manfred Max-Neef. A transcript of an interview with
him from 2010:
"I worked for about ten years of my life in areas of extreme poverty in the Sierras, in the jungle, in urban areas in different
parts of Latin America. And at the beginning of that period, I was one day in an Indian village in the Sierra in Peru. It was
an ugly day. It had been raining all the time. And I was standing in the slum. And across me, another guy also standing in the
mud -- not in the slum, in the mud. And, well, we looked at each other, and this was a short guy, thin, hungry, jobless, five
kids, a wife and a grandmother. And I was the fine economist from Berkeley, teaching in Berkeley, having taught in Berkeley and
so on. And we were looking at each other, and then suddenly I realized that I had nothing coherent to say to that man in those
circumstances, that my whole language as an economist, you know, was absolutely useless. Should I tell him that he should be happy
because the GDP had grown five percent or something? Everything was absurd.
So I discovered that I had no language in that environment and that we had to invent a new language. And that's the origin
of the metaphor of barefoot economics, which concretely means that is the economics that an economist who dares to step into the
mud must practice. The point is, you know, that economists study and analyze poverty in their nice offices, have all the statistics,
make all the models, and are convinced that they know everything that you can know about poverty. But they don't understand poverty.
And that's the big problem. And that's the big problem. And that's why poverty is still there. And that changed my life as an
economist completely. I invented a language that is coherent with those situations and conditions."
It's a good interview of someone developing an alternate view.
(There are critiques and studies of wealth that I think we need more of as well, only poverty is thought of as pathological –
a subject which he tackles.)
And just maybe, human goodness and human evil have a cyclical nature too and we are just in the bad part of the cycle right
now. However, it may be true also that the time period of 1950 to 1970 was an anomaly that may not recur, and that the true nature
of human beings is to lie, to cheat, to steal, to commit fraud and practice multifarious corruptions and violence. When you look
at the widest version of history, human nature is not so benign.
1950 to 1970 the rest of the industrial world was decimated after 2 world wars.
And more countries wanted independence from colonialism (less loot spread around, however thinly, back home – though not totally
disappeared).
Psychology turns into sociology. Either the system is making everyone prosperous and happy or it is making everyone desperate.
Desperation is the American way. The comfort of misery seen as pathological in the individual is a more general pathology. Too
much bile in the system.
"The Sticky Floor." is the phrase my cousin invented. She is a leader in Women's Studies. It may well apply more correctly that
"The Glass Ceiling". Overall the turn in the article to the dearth of women economists threw me.
As science enables engineering, economics enables financial engineering. The predominant financial engineer of our times is Meyer
Lansky. Organized business, the "real" economy of General Motors and Dow & Dupont & General Dynamics & Raytheon, ITT, Apple, Google,
Microsoft all now have adopted Meyer Lansky Financial Engineering.
It was made legal as economic theory and practice under Clinton Unit 1's reign.
The preeminent financial engineer is David Cay Johnston. He called Dean Baker a "real" economist as opposed to Michael Hudson.
I prefer Hudson to Dean myself. Nobody knows everything. This is why all you really have to know is the goal. "You cannot go wrong
if your goals are correct." is what Einstein said.
The main reason for misery is poverty, which is not having enough to operate the household without debt peonage.
The United States and the EU as run by Central Banks have it so only the selected have infinite access to currency. The States
don't have enough money so the System prefers they deny their people things like education and healthcare, and sell bonds.
It is okay for the Federal Government to tax or not tax but the States must tax to fill their treasuries.
Alan Greenspan's philosophy came from Ayn Rand whose world view encouraged the exclusive access and economic security to have
and do whatever they, the rich, people like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos, envisioned as ideal for them, and them only. (They live in
airport land with a pond.)
It came from Russian Dystopian Objectivism and produces Dystopia.
The American Philosophy, that which made America loved is American Eclectic Pragmatism.
The wrong goal is to make only those in Finance rich. The right goal is to make everyone as much a jet setter as the jet setters.
Until the goal of Economists is blatantly aimed at relative equality of life, the discipline is simply on the wrong track and
is never going to be worth doing.
Thanks.
Approved economics has nothing to do with actually understanding or solving anything except be a useful smokescreen for wealthy
special interests. I have gotten a more accurate and functional understanding of overall economics from classes, and books in
anthropology, political science, and history than in any classes labeled as "economics."
That is really sad. It is also very deliberate. Those who say modern economic studies have been stripped of anything but neoliberal/libertarian
economic ideas are right. Even then, it seems that it has been either further simplified, or abstracted, to further channel any
thoughts away from real life.
Let's put it this way. Philosophy can be used to actual ask and study questions or it can be used to debate how many angels
can fit on the head of a pin. Guess what what modern mainstream economics does?
There are inherent flaws in neoclassical economics that have already been discovered.
The 1920s roared with debt based consumption and speculation until it all tipped over into the debt deflation of the Great
Depression. No one realised the problems that were building up in the economy as they used an economics that doesn't look at private
debt, neoclassical economics.
The two elements of neoclassical economics that come together to cause financial crises.
1) It doesn't consider debt
2) It holds a set of beliefs about markets where they represent the rational decisions of market participants; they reach stable
equilibriums and the valuations represent real wealth.
Everyone marvels at the wealth creation of rising asset prices, no one looks at the debt that is driving it.
The "black swan" was obvious all along and it was pretty much the same as 1929.
1929 – Inflating US stock prices with debt (margin lending)
2008 – Inflating US real estate prices with debt (mortgage lending)
"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." Irving Fisher 1929.
An earlier neoclassical economist believed in price discovery, stable equilibriums and the rational decisions of market participants,
and what the neoclassical economist believes about the markets means they can't even imagine there could be a bubble.
The amount of real wealth stored in the markets becomes apparent once the bubble has burst.
The debt overhang (ref. graph above) is dragging the US economy down and is the cause of Janet Yellen's inflation mystery,
but they don't know because they don't consider debt. It's called a balance sheet recession.
The problems that led to 2008 come from private debt in the economy and the problems now come from the overhang of private
debt in the economy, but they are using an economics that doesn't consider private debt.
"The problem this essay addresses can be framed in terms of two quotations from Alexis de Tocqueville. The first comes
from his famous speech in the French Chamber of Deputies just prior to the outbreak of the Revolution of 1848: "We are sleeping
on a volcano .do you not see that the earth is beginning to tremble. The wind of revolt rises; the tempest is on the horizon."
The second is from Democracy in America: "When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness."
How about this quote ..
"These fools in Wall Street think they can go on forever! They can't!" President Theodore Roosevelt 1909.
The US has just forgotten its own history; this is what it was like at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century.
Capitalism was running wild, but the difference was there used to be a critical press.
Catch up on US history.
"PR! A Social History of Spin" Stuart Ewen
Finding out what the private sector uses PR for also helps you understand their motivations, it's worth reading.
Our Esteemed Elites are mostly college educated which hopefully includes American history. But maybe it's become like modern
college economics. Stripped of inconvenient information.
I agree that beyond the normal American nation's ultra short memory, there is a regular effort by some to eliminate any inconvenience
ones. If history is a career or even a hobby you will likely know much about America history bad (and good too!) that goes zooop
into the memory hole. It becomes a boring national hagiography. Sanitized. But that shouldn't be.
But STEM courses are so much more important than fluff like history.
As with a few other commenters here, the essay puts me in mind of historiography, to wit E.H. Carr whose 'before studying history,
study the historians' became the fighting slogan for the radical history movement of the 1960s:
"The facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger's slab. They are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes
inaccessible ocean; and what [facts] the historian catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean
he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use."
"Economists had closed ranks as though in a phalanx, but the crisis showed how fragile these tenets were. They included:
1. A resolute unwillingness to recognize that fundamental uncertainty shadows economic life in the real world."
. And for this one, do I even need to requote Upton Sinclair?!
Economists and central bankers are our modern day priest-astrologers. We *need* them to know! to appease Bel-Marduk and Istar,
to ensure a fruitful harvest, the birth of worthy sons
.and also, for a small commission, to manage our tax collections/ debts/ alehouses/ brothels [hat tip to Prof Hudson].
This is about the UK, but applies equally to the US as we are all doing the same neoliberal things.
Why isn't the economy growing?
We shouldn't get side tracked with productivity as productivity is GDP per hour worked and we need to grow GDP.
What is GDP?
The amount of money spent into the economy by consumers, businesses and the Government plus the income we receive from the
trade balance with the rest of the world.
Now we know what GDP is we can immediately see why austerity is contractionary. The cut in Government spending comes straight
off GDP (someone tell Macron).
The aim is to increase the amount of goods and services within the economy at the same rate as the demand for those goods and
services, whilst increasing the money supply to allow those extra goods and services to be purchased.
Milton Freidman understood the money supply had to rise gradually to grow the economy with his "Monetarism". He thought that
central bank reserves controlled the money supply and this is why it didn't work.
The economists focus on supply (neoclassical economics) or demand (Keynesian economics) until the balance of supply and demand
gets out of step. The economy stagnates due to either insufficient supply (1970s stagflation) or insufficient demand (today's
ultra low inflation).
Money needs to enter the economy to increase the supply of goods and services, while at the same time; the increased money
supply enables the demand for those goods and services.
Banks and governments create money and this is now well understood outside the mainstream.
The banks have been creating money to lend into real estate and inflate financial asset prices. This is not what you want;
they should be creating money to increase the supply of goods and services by lending into business and industry. Their lending
hasn't been increasing GDP.
It all started going wrong when with financial liberalisation and a 1979 policy decision. The UK eliminated corset controls
on banking in 1979 and the banks invaded the mortgage market. This is the start of the real estate frenzy.
You can let bankers do what they want, but they have no idea how to grow the economy with bank credit.
Supply had outstripped demand by the 1920s in the US and they used bank credit to maintain demand, but this can never work in
the longer term as this money needs to be paid back. Government created money has to fill the gap as it doesn't need to be paid
back.
Governments can create money, jobs and wages in the public sector, building the infrastructure for the economy and looking
after the health and education of the population to provide the economic framework necessary for the private sector who can't
make a profit doing these things.
The magic number is GDP, we need to focus on what increasing that number means.
Our main problem is an ideological Left who think the answer always lies on the demand side and an ideological Right who always
think the answer lies on the supply side.
The Left think Government is the answer and the Right think the private sector is the answer.
You need both, due to the increased productivity of the private sector that cannot create the necessary demand for those goods
and services through private sector wages alone.
Understanding money is critical and this is something central bankers monitor, but they don't appear to know what it means
The flow of funds within the economy.
This helps us understand why Government surpluses precede finical crises and why balanced budgets and Government surpluses
push the private sector into debt
Richard Koo shows the graph central bankers use, the flow of funds within the economy, which sums to zero (32-34 mins.).
Government assets + corporate assets + household assets + transfers from/to the rest of the world = zero
They can't all be positive.
The US runs a large trade deficit and this money needs to come from somewhere.
It is the Government that should run the big deficit to fund the other three and if you clamp down on government spending your
economy can't grow unless it starts running on bank debt. The corporate sector and households have to get into debt to balance
this zero sum equation.
A Government surplus requires an indebted private sector unless you are Germany and run a trade surplus.
Clinton was proud of the Government surplus but he didn't realise that this meant the private sector had to go into debt. The
last Government surplus occurred in 1927 – 1930, it precedes crises.
Richard Koo's video shows the Japanese Government ran a surplus just before the Japanese economy blew up.
Neoclassical economics doesn't focus on GDP because it predates it. It was put together before they knew how to measure economic
activity.
It lets the wealthy accumulate all the money until the economy falls over though a lack of demand.
Mariner Eccles, FED chair 1934 – 48, passes comment the last time they used neoclassical economics in the US in the 1920s.
"a giant suction pump had by 1929 to 1930 drawn into a few hands an increasing proportion of currently produced wealth.
This served then as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied
themselves the kind of effective demand for their products which would justify reinvestment of the capital accumulation in new
plants. In consequence as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could
stay in the game only by borrowing. When the credit ran out, the game stopped"
This time it's global.
2014 – "85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world"
2016 – "Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world's population"
2017 – World's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%
Lying, cheating, and stealing is what we human beings seem to do best, so when the pot becomes big enough, the elite [those
willing to do whatever it takes] do what the elite have done, lie, cheat and steal with reckless abandon.
Those who choose to live a noble life must always be grounded by the notion that the reward for doing such is in achieving
good night's sleep, and little more. You truly can not have your cake and eat it too, not then, not now, not ever
While it is stupid to argue that neoliberalism does not exist: it exits both as ideology, economic theory and politicl
pratice (much like Marxism before it; yet another "man-made" ideology -- actually a variation of Trotskyism, this discussion does
illuminate some interesting and subtle points.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism is a time-limited global system sustained by coercive imposition of competitive behaviour, parasitic finance & privatisation. ..."
"... But it's better to think of neoliberalism as a bunch of arrangements ("system" if you remove connotations of design) rather than as an ideology. Ed has a point when he says that almost nobody fully subscribes to "neoliberal ideology": free market supporters, for example, don't defend crony capitalism. ..."
"... Perhaps the texts of transnational trade treaties might be the best place to search for a de facto definition of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Whether or not the present neoliberal system is the result of a single coherent ideology, it emerged from the 70s on as a set of related (if not deliberately coordinated) responses to the structural crises of the older postwar Keynesian system. And there was definitely a cluster of policy-making elites in the early 70s making similar observations about the failure of consensus capitalism. ..."
"... It is possible to have 'hard' and 'soft' neoliberalism depending on whether the state employs 'carrots' or 'sticks', but essentially almost the entire UK political system agreed that 'There Is No Alternative' until Corbyn became Labour leader. ..."
"... I think Will Davies has hit the spot with his definition of neoliberalism as "the disenchantment of politics by economics". In other words, neoliberalism is first and foremost a political praxis, not an economic theory. It is about power, hence the continuing importance of the state. ..."
"... That is the Great Transformation and neoliberalism as its current phase are about turning institutions into businesses (including marriage), and part of this is "managerialism". This is not done because businesses are inherently better for every purpose than institutions, but because businesses are better vehicles than institutions for tunnelling (looting) by their managers. ..."
"... Neo-liberals are not opposed to all types of government intervention. But like neo-classical economists, they believe ultimately in the price mechanism to allocate resources - in the long run, if not the short. ..."
"... In terms of sincerity, Milton Friedman asserted in "Capitalism and Freedom" that the more a society was "free market," the more equal it was. Come the preface to 50th anniversary edition, he simply failed to mention that applying his own ideology had refuted his assertion (and it was an assertion). ..."
"... Neo-liberalism never been about reducing "the State" but rather strengthening it in terms of defending and supporting capital. Hence you see Tories proclaim they are "cutting back the state" while also increasing state regulation on trade unions -- and regulating strikes, and so the labour market. ..."
"... Somewhere along the line neo-liberalism got associated with austerity and small-government policies. The latter I think was because they are (correctly) associated with promoting privatisation and deregulation policy. ..."
"... But the market is the creation of man. It has no power, no judgement, other than that bestowed on it by us. My problem with neoliberalism is the belief that decisions can be made on the basis of a money metric whereas we know that money is not necessarily a good measure of value. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is real, but only describes background theoretical claims. It is wrong to apply the term to the broader political movement it supported. The political movement was dedicated to maximizing the power and freedom of action of large-scale capital accumulators. Lots of ideas from neoliberal intellectual argumentation were used to increase the power of capital accumulators, and neoliberal economists tended to ignore many aspects of the political movement they supported (strongr state power, crony capitalism, monopoly power) not strictly part of neoliberal theory ..."
"... usually the theory was just a weapon used in internal battles or as a PR tool to mask less savory political objectives. ..."
"... Repeating the message: "neoliberalism" has a pretty much official definition, the "Washington Consensus". And the core part of the "Washington Consensus" is "labour market reform", that is in practice whichever policies make labour more "competitive" and wages more "affordable". ..."
"... The "free markets" of neoliberalism are primarily "free" labour markets, that is free of unions. ..."
"... I would argue that, in terms of practical working definitions, Max Sawicky's definition of neo-liberalism seems to work well, at least in the U.S. context (second half of post): https://mikethemadbiologist.com/2017/04/28/remember-the-victims-of-the-nebraska-public-power-district/ ..."
Is neoliberalism even a thing? This is the question posed by Ed Conway, who
claims
it is "not an ideology but an insult." I half agree.
I agree that the economic system we have is "hardly the result of a guiding ideology" and more the result of "happenstance".
I say this because neoliberalism is NOT the same as the sort of free market ideology proposed by Friedman and Hayek. If this were
the case, it would have died on 13 October 2008 when the government bailed out
RBS .
In fact, though, as Will
Davies
and Adam Curtis
have said, neoliberalism entails the use of an active state. A big part of neoliberalism is the use of the state to increase the
power and profits of the 1% - capitalists and top managers. Increased managerialism, crony capitalism and tough benefit sanctions
are all features of neoliberalism. In this respect, the EU's treatment of Greece was neoliberal – ensuring that banks got paid at
the expense of ordinary people.
I suspect, though, that measures such as these were, as Ed says, not so much part of a single ideology as uncoordinated events.
Tax cuts for the rich, public sector outsourcing and target culture, for example, were mostly justified by appeals to efficiency,
and were not regarded even by their advocates as parts of a unified theory. To believe otherwise would be to subscribe to a conspiracy
theory which gives too much credit to Thatcher and her epigones.
Neoliberalism is a time-limited global system sustained by coercive imposition of competitive behaviour, parasitic finance
& privatisation.
I'm not sure about that word "system". Maybe it attributes too much systematization to neoliberals: perhaps unplanned order would
be a better phrase. But it's better to think of neoliberalism as a bunch of arrangements ("system" if you remove connotations
of design) rather than as an ideology. Ed has a point when he says that almost nobody fully subscribes to "neoliberal ideology":
free market supporters, for example, don't defend crony capitalism.
And it's useful to have words for economic systems. Just as we speak of "post-war Keynesianism" to mean a bundle of policies and
institutions of which Keynesian fiscal policy was only a small part, so we can speak of "neoliberalism" to describe our current arrangement.
It's a better description than the horribly question-begging "late capitalism".
This isn't to say that "neoliberalism" has a precise meaning. There are varieties of it, just as there were of post-war Keynesianism.
Think of the word as like "purple". There are shades of purple, we'll not agree when exactly purple turns into blue, and we'll struggle
to define the word (especially to someone who is colour-blind). But "purple" is nevertheless a useful word, and we know it when we
see it.
If neoliberalism is a system rather than an ideology, what role does ideology play?
I suspect it's that of post-fact justification.
Put it this way. In the mid-80s nobody argued that the share of GDP going to the top 1% should double. Of course, many advocated
policies which, it turns out, had this effect. Some of them intended this. But those policies were justified on other grounds, often
sincerely. Instead, the belief that the top 1% "deserve" 15% of total incomes rather than 7-8% has mostly followed them getting 15%,
not led it. A host of cognitive biases – the just world illusion,
anchoring
effect and status quo bias underpin
an ideology which defends inequality. John Jost calls this system
justification (pdf) . You can gather all these biases under the umbrella term "neoliberal ideology" if you want. But it follows
economic events rather than is the creator of them.
So, I half agree with Ed that neoliberalism isn't a guiding ideology. But I also agree with Paul, that it is a way of describing
a particular economic system.
I don't, however, want to get hung up on words: I'd rather leave such pedantry to the worst sort of academic. What's more important
than language is the brute fact that productivity and hence real incomes for most of us have
stagnated for years. In this sense, our existing economic system has
failed the majority of people. And this is true whatever name you give it.
Perhaps the texts of transnational trade treaties might be the best place to search for a de facto definition of neoliberalism.
There's not much room to blur, obfuscate (beyond the natural impenetrability of legalese) or wreath around with dubious ethicism
in these documents I'd imagine.
if it's a way of describing the prevailing economic system, does it make sense to describe people as neoliberals? Does that imply
that everyone who is not a radical revolutionary (i.e. anyone who if they got their way in government would still be within normal
variation in policies from a USA Republican administration to the Danish Labour party?). So the Koch brothers are neoliberals
and Brad De Long is a neoliberal despite them disagreeing vehemently about most things?
I know we have lots of other words that are used in wildly inconsistent ways (capitalism, socialism) but I can't help being
irked by the sheer incoherence of the things that neoliberals are accused of. Most recent example to come to mind, somebody in
conversation with Will Davies on Twitter claimed neoliberals oppose redistribution (and Will did not correct him). FFS.
'But, despite the fact that neoliberalism is frequently referred to as an ideology, it is oddly difficult to pin down. For
one thing, it is a word that tends to be used almost exclusively by those who are criticising it - not by its advocates, such
as they are (in stark contrast to almost every other ideology, nearly no-one self-describes as a neoliberal). In other words,
it is not an ideology but an insult.'
Well political science and history uses models too. What is the problem of say David Harvey's definition in, A Brief History
of ...that which doesn't exist (2007)?
Rather I think he means it upsets 'main stream' economics professors, to be called this term, and rather than opt for Wren
Lewis gambit (there is such a thing as 'Media Macro' or 'Tory Macro', or 'Econ 101', which I found interesting as it happens)
Conway has gone for pedantry and first year Politics student essentialism, ie what is Democracy? type stuff.
Neoliberalism, at least in the UK, was in part a reaction by Thatcher & Co to the excesses of previous Labour administrations:
excesses in the form of "if an industry looks like going bust, let's pour whatever amount of taxpayer's money into it needed to
save it". Thatcher & Co's reaction was: "s*d that for a lark – the rules of the free market are better than industrial subsidies
(especially industrial subsidies in cabinet ministers' constituencies)"
Whether or not the present neoliberal system is the result of a single coherent ideology, it emerged from the 70s on as a
set of related (if not deliberately coordinated) responses to the structural crises of the older postwar Keynesian system. And
there was definitely a cluster of policy-making elites in the early 70s making similar observations about the failure of consensus
capitalism.
"if it's a way of describing the prevailing economic system, does it make sense to describe people as neoliberals?"
Yes, these are largely people who reacted to the 'series of events' that occurred in the global economy in the 1970s by essentially
accepting a certain set of policies and responses, many of which involved seeking to insulate the state against collective popular
demands, intervening against organised labour, deregulating finance and targeting state intervention towards private business.
It is possible to have 'hard' and 'soft' neoliberalism depending on whether the state employs 'carrots' or 'sticks', but essentially
almost the entire UK political system agreed that 'There Is No Alternative' until Corbyn became Labour leader.
Many of these people were hardly hardcore ideologists but rather pragmatic
or unimaginative types that were unwilling to challenge the 'status quo' or the prevailing economic system, just as there were
very few classical liberals from WWI onwards.
I think Will Davies has hit the spot with his definition of neoliberalism as "the disenchantment of politics by economics". In
other words, neoliberalism is first and foremost a political praxis, not an economic theory. It is about power, hence the continuing
importance of the state.
This instrumentality echoes Thatcher's insistence that "Economics are the method; the object is to change the heart and soul",
which shows that there was more in play in the late-70s and early-80s than simply responding to the "structural crises of the
older postwar Keynesian system".
You should be reading Philip Mirowski instead. The economist and historian of science Philip Mirowski is considered the foremost expert on this subject, he has written many
books on this the latest is:
"The Knowledge We Have Lost in Information: The History of Information in Modern Economics":
Neoliberalism is a philosophy based on the metaphor/idea that the "market" is an information process ad it is quasi-omniscient,
that "knows" more than any and all of us could ever know. It makes certain claims about what "information" is and what a "market"
is. It's mostly started with the Mont Perelin Society think-tank.
"productivity and hence real incomes for most of us have stagnated for years."
But for many, usually people who vote more often or more opportunistically, they have been years of booming living standards.
The core of the electoral appeal of thatcherism is that thatcherites whether Conservative or New Labour have worked hard to
ensure that upper-middle (and many middle) class voters collectively cornered the southern property market, creating a massive
short squeeze on people short housing.
So many champagne leftists of some age talk about policies and concepts, but for the many the number one problem for decades
has been managing to pay rent.
"neoliberalism is first and foremost a political praxis, not an economic theory. It is about power, hence the continuing
importance of the state."
That's a very good point, but I would rather say that's a good description of New Right/thatcherite (and "third way" clintonian/mandelsonian)
politics, and neoliberalism is the economic policy aspect.
There is after all something called "The Washington consensus" that is a "standard" set of neoliberal economic policies.
"Neoliberalism is a philosophy based on the metaphor/idea that the "market" is an information process"
Written that wait it evokes Polanyi's "Great transformation" where markets mechanisms have displaced social mechanisms in many
areas.
But Just yesterday I realized that Polanyi was subtly off-target: it is not markets-vs-society (two fairly abstract concepts)
but instead institutions-vs-businesses.
That is the Great Transformation and neoliberalism as its current phase are about turning institutions into businesses
(including marriage), and part of this is "managerialism". This is not done because businesses are inherently better for every
purpose than institutions, but because businesses are better vehicles than institutions for tunnelling (looting) by their managers.
"the "market" is an information process ad it is quasi-omniscient, that "knows" more than any and all of us could ever know"
There have been a few books arguing that "the market", being omniscient, all powerful, and just in judging everybody and giving
them exactly what they deserve, has replaced God, and today's sell-side neoliberal Economists are its preachers:
Economists started using the term neo-liberalism a bit later, after it became a derogatory term - and after 2008 began to disassociate
from it (a few, and very few, did after the Asian Financial Crisis).
It is important to realise I think that it is a term that closely linked to political science -- and in particular a branch
of international relations. The person most associated with Neo-liberalism is Francis Fukuyama. What he did was link capitalism
and democracy; both he said had triumphed and because they respect the freedom of individual liberty and they allowed markets,
which are the most efficient way of allocating resources, to operate liberally. Its heyday was at the time of the collapse of
the Berlin Wall - "the end of history" as FF famously said.
Political scientists see neo-classical economics and neo-liberalism as very compatible, because of the formers basic construct
of individual optimisation, rational choice and market efficiency. Often they are grouped together and contrasted with radical
and realist (realpolitik) approaches. For neo-liberals and neo-classicists, markets get prices right, whether they do so with
a lag is a minor point.
Neo-liberals are not opposed to all types of government intervention. But like neo-classical economists, they believe ultimately
in the price mechanism to allocate resources - in the long run, if not the short.
They have no problem with welfare states. Like neo-classical economists they accept the second welfare theorem.
They are pro-globalisation: they don't like international trade, capital or immigration controls. Why? Because they impact
on individual liberty and distort market prices.
International relations were often guiding reasons behind economic policy that were pro-globalisation. By encouraging globalisation,
you were encouraging international capitalism and thereby the spread of democracy (a la Francis Fukuyama). International relations
policy was close to the PM, and run from the Cabinet Office.
I would argue that Blair and Jonathan Portes are prime examples of neo-liberals. And indeed the Clinton/Blair years were quintessentially
neo-liberal in the formerly correct use of the term. Thatcher, as a strong opponent of the welfare state, was not.
One further point. Neo-liberals are progressively and socially liberal, as well as economically liberal. They believe in cosmopolitanism
and diversity and put much emphasis on minority and women's rights.
"In fact, though, as Will Davies and Adam Curtis have said, neoliberalism entails the use of an active state."
It has always been like that -- Kropotkin was attacking Marxists for suggesting otherwise over a hundred years ago.
"In the mid-80s nobody argued that the share of GDP going to the top 1% should double. Of course, many advocated policies which,
it turns out, had this effect. Some of them intended this. But those policies were justified on other grounds, often sincerely."
Yes, different rhetoric was often used -- but the net effect was always obvious, and pointed out at the time. But you get better
results with honey than vinegar...
In terms of sincerity, Milton Friedman asserted in "Capitalism and Freedom" that the more a society was "free market," the
more equal it was. Come the preface to 50th anniversary edition, he simply failed to mention that applying his own ideology had
refuted his assertion (and it was an assertion).
Neo-liberalism never been about reducing "the State" but rather strengthening it in terms of defending and supporting capital.
Hence you see Tories proclaim they are "cutting back the state" while also increasing state regulation on trade unions -- and
regulating strikes, and so the labour market.
"intervening against organised labour" China bans unions, doesn't it? Are they in this tent too?
"targeting state intervention towards private business" not quite sure what that means but pre-1970 import substitution industrial
policy is what?
am I a neoliberal because I think markets do process dispersed information and that competition does some good things (I am
worried about monopolies, I would be worried about non-competitive government procurement) or am I not a neoliberal because I
am nowhere near thinking markets are omniscient and could write long essays on how markets fail?
am I a neoliberal because I think the Washington Consensus is broadly sensible (with some reservations) or not a neoliberal
because I'd like to see far more social housing?
Somewhere along the line neo-liberalism got associated with austerity and small-government policies. The latter I think was
because they are (correctly) associated with promoting privatisation and deregulation policy.
But neo-liberals have never been against welfare states in principle or counter-cyclical policy in principle.
Key-neo-liberals, however, were pro-austerity policy after the Asian Financial Crisis - but this included most of the mainstream
economics establishment (most crucially of all Stanley Fischer at the IMF). Their rational (naturally enough) related to consistency,
credibility, incentives and moral hazard arguments. There were a few who protested (eg Stiglitz). But they were exceptions.
@ Luis Enrique
I don't think you'd make the grade as a 'true' neo-liberal unless you'd be happy for your social housing to be less then optimal
and only for the destitute. Do you see moral hazard if the housing market is once again sidestepped in favour of decent homes
for average every-day heroes, or do you subscribe (explicitly) to the view that the state must sanction and hurt in order that
individuals strive?
"There have been a few books arguing that "the market", being omniscient, all powerful, and just in judging everybody and giving
them exactly what they deserve, has replaced God...."
But the market is the creation of man. It has no power, no judgement, other than that bestowed on it by us. My problem with neoliberalism is the belief that decisions can be made on the basis of a money metric whereas we know that
money is not necessarily a good measure of value.
'"intervening against organised labour"
China bans unions, doesn't it? Are they in this tent too?'
Well yes. They have taken it further than most countries, stripping back their welfare system while increasing state promotion
of capitalist development.
'"targeting state intervention towards private business" not quite sure what that means but pre-1970 import substitution industrial
policy is what?'
Import substitution industrial policy is protectionism, not neoliberalism. I'm referring to governments' privatisation and
outsourcing of public services and industries, taking them out of political responsibility and collective provision, while at
the same time providing them with subsidies and guaranteed markets.
Ben, ok protectionism is a different tactic than outsourcing but it's intervention towards private business so maybe that's not
a defining characteristic of neoliberalism?
And if the Chinese Communist party is neoliberal and also the Koch brothers I am not convinced this is a useful nomenclature
Is Productivity Growth like Evolution ?
Is it possible that productivity growth is like evolution: It can be a fortitous accident or it can happen due to competitive
pressure. The fortuitous accidents are the new technologies whose advantages are so obvious they are quickly adopted.
The competitive pressures can be constraints on profits or resources that force greater efficiency. Perhaps, now, in the UK, there is no shortage of reasonably priced personnel, infrastructure and goods. So, if productivity growth is low, you can be certain neither requirement has been met.
If neither requirement has been met, then, it may well be that there is excessive unused capacity and, if that is the case,
GDP growth has been suboptimal.
Which leads to the best question: Is greater GDP growth the result of greater efficiency or is greater efficiency the result
of greater GDP growth?
The conclusion is that it may be a mistake to guide policy under the assumption that GDP growth must he preceded by productivity
growth. Failing to realize this may be a cause of unnoticed suboptimal GDP growth.
.
1. Neoliberalism is real, but only describes background theoretical claims. It is wrong to apply the term to the broader political
movement it supported. The political movement was dedicated to maximizing the power and freedom of action of large-scale capital
accumulators. Lots of ideas from neoliberal intellectual argumentation were used to increase the power of capital accumulators,
and neoliberal economists tended to ignore many aspects of the political movement they supported (strongr state power, crony capitalism,
monopoly power) not strictly part of neoliberal theory
2. The overlap and confusion between neoliberal theory and the political movement for unfettered freedom for capital accumulator
is consistent with the broader history of movement conservatism. After WW2, conservatives (broadly defined) had a fixation with
developing an intellectual foundatation/justification for their policy preferences. Partly as a reaction to the perception that
FDR-LBJ era liberalism was based on theories published by Ivy League professors. The Mont Pelerin intellectual thread that Mirowski
and others describe was part of this process. But (even for the liberals) it was always a mistake to claim that intellectual/ideological
theorizing lead to political policy and action. It was sometimes the opposite; usually the theory was just a weapon used in internal
battles or as a PR tool to mask less savory political objectives.
3. Democratic neoliberalism (Brad DeLong) was always a totally different animal. It was a reaction to the economic crises of the
70s/80s--New Deal policies written in 1934 didn't seem to be working; maybe would should incorporate market forces a bit more.
At the same time Republican neoliberalism had abandoned all pretense of detached analysis and was now strictly a tool supporting
the pursuit of power.
"Put it this way. In the mid-80s nobody argued that the share of GDP going to the top 1% should double. Of course, many advocated
policies which, it turns out, had this effect. Some of them intended this. But those policies were justified on other grounds,
often sincerely. Instead, the belief that the top 1% "deserve" 15% of total incomes rather than 7-8% has mostly followed them
getting 15%, not led it. "
This is just not true. People did argue that, did announce the intent of these policies in public. Bill Mitchell's former student
Victor Quirk is great on such declarations of war on the poor from the rich throughout history. Mitchell himself wrote that he
was surprised how many and how blatant these declarations were.
"But the market is the creation of man. It has no power, no judgement, other than that bestowed on it by us."
But the neoliberal thesis is that it is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-judging. "vox populi vox dei" taken to an extreme.
"My problem with neoliberalism is the belief that decisions can be made on the basis of a money metric"
That to me seems a very poor argument, because then many will object that ignoring the money metric means that you want someone
else to pay. Consider the statement "everybody has a right to healthcare free at the point of use": it is mere handwaving unless you explain
who and how to pay for it.
The discussion in the money yes/no terms is for me fruitless, because there are two distinct issues in a project: the motivation
for there being the project, and the business of doing the project.
Claiming that the *only* motivation for a project should be money seems to me as bad a claiming that given a good motivation
how to pay for a project does not matter.
Projects don't reduce to their motivation any more than they reduce to the business of doing them.
An extreme example I make is marriage: for me it is (also) a business, as it requires a careful look at money and organization
issues, but hopefully the motivation to engage in that business is not economic, but personal feelings.
That's why I mentioned a better-than-Polanyi duality between businesses and institutions: institutions as a rule carry out
businesses but for non-business motivations, while "pure" businesses have merely economic motivations.
For example a university setup as a charity versus one setup a a business: both carry out business activities, but the motivation
of the former is not merely to do business.
Repeating the message: "neoliberalism" has a pretty much official definition, the "Washington Consensus". And the core part
of the "Washington Consensus" is "labour market reform", that is in practice whichever policies make labour more "competitive"
and wages more "affordable".
The "free markets" of neoliberalism are primarily "free" labour markets, that is free of unions.
@ Blissex "ignoring the money metric means that you want someone else to pay."
Not sure I follow. If payment is made via money then that is not ignoring the money metric, i.e. money as a measure of value.
Do we want someone to do the project and is someone willing and able to do it? If, yes, then money is not (or at least does not
need to be) the constraint. It is a mechanism to facilitate the project. If we want universal healthcare, money is not the constraint,
the constraint is the ability of society to train and sustain (feed and house) the required expertise.
Neo-liberalism is an economic idea based on the conjecture that by reverting the level of state spending and regulation of an
economy to that which existed at an earlier stage of its economic development will produce the same level of economic growth which
the economy experienced then.
But the level of output of an economy is a reflection of the level of the efficiency of that economy, the level of economic
growth therefore reflects the rate of increase in its efficiency in terms of increased economic output as the economy develops,
a measure which inevitably reduces in its order as an economy approaches its maximum level of efficiency and output. So the rate
of economic growth of an economy will inevitably be progressively reduced as an economy matures as the opportunities for efficiency
improvements are exploited and the number that remain diminish.
The level of state spending and regulation typical of economically developed societies are responses to the social change which
economic development itself has brought about. Abolishing those responses therefore is likely only to serve to reintroduce the
social problems which led to their introduction and to make the social consequences of economic development more arduous for the
lower social and economic groups disfavoured by that process of social change.
Neo-liberalism is, like other materialist ideology of the progressive left and right, a predominantly economic idea which is
a product of the affluent and intellectual classes who themselves, being a product of their elevated economic condition, being
dependent upon it and therefore having a vested interest in its continuance, are imbued with a bias which sees the improvement
in the general economic condition as a natural unmitigated good and are therefore oblivious or apathetic to its non-material consequences
as material progress causes a society and its population to diverge from its native and surviving character as it adapts to the
historically exceptional conditions of modernity and undermines its cultural foundation and ultimately threatens its long term
cultural future.
It seems clear from the above posts that there is no clear consensus about what neo-liberalism actually is.
I suggest the use of the term is little more than a cloak used to cover up an uncomfortable reality for those on the left.
Traditional left wing policies, such as nationalisation, state intervention in the economy such as rent controls, high marginal
tax rates, and strong trade unions systematically failed to deliver prosperity. States which moved to economic models involving
more reliance on markets to shift labour and capital to new activities seemed to prosper far better. Rather than say that conservatives
such as Friedman were proved right about the fundamental propositions about how an economy should be organised, the soft left
adopted conservative policies, and have dressed it up as 'neo-liberalism' to save face.
Indeed, some on the left, such as 'filthy rich' Mandelson, embraced the market economy with the zeal of converts, and have
ignored its faults and problems, and have failed to seek to mitigate or remedy these faults and problems.
The best thing to do is consult a first or second year undergraduate political science or international relations text. Burchill
"Theories of International Relations, Palgrave is a good one, and used in many UK universities. There will be a chapter on neo-liberalism
in them. These texts give you the standard blurb on what neo-liberalism really is (as well as what the other major schools of
thoughts are together with critiques of all of them).
Neo-liberalism is very much a coherent (but by no means flawless) theory.
Neo-liberalism comes from the subject of international relations. Fukuyama is the most representative neo-liberal. Important
is the notion of 'soft power': the spread of capitalism and western culture and other forms of globalisation spreads western notions
of democracy and human rights. It was important to integrate countries into the international capitalist (and engage them in the
multilateral) system. At the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall this seemed to be a convincing theory. It was very much adopted
as a key foreign policy strategy in the UK and the US. One of its biggest blows, however, is the lack of political reform we have
seen in China. What this showed was that democratisation does not necessarily follow capitalism and globalisation.
Just to qualify what I said above - the would not use the term "western notions". Ie they would not associate democracy or human
rights with being western. They are very cosmopolitan, and believe in the notion of universal, (not relative), values.
""ignoring the money metric means that you want someone else to pay."
... then money is not (or at least does not need to be) the constraint. It is a mechanism to facilitate the project. If we want
universal healthcare, money is not the constraint,"
Oh please, this is just two-bit nominalism: "money" then is just the mechanism by which "you want someone else to pay" and
indeed:
"the constraint is the ability of society to train and sustain (feed and house) the required expertise."
That is the *physical* aggregate constraint, regardless of whoever pays, the practical constraint, given that physical stuff
is purchased with money, creating or obtaining that money.
The question is then distributional, who is going to pay the money to "train and sustain (feed and house) the required expertise".
Unless there are ample unused resources, someone will have to pay.
What right-wingers object to is the idea that "universal health care" is paid for as a percent of income, so that someone on
Ł100,000 a year pays Ł8,000 a year for exactly the same level of service that someone on Ł10,000 a year pays Ł800 a year for.
@Luis Enrique: Correct - you are not a neoliberal as you'd like to see far more social housing? A neoliberal believes in more
economic freedom, so you achieve the aim of housing people who need state help for housing, food, energy etc by giving them the
money to buy a basic level of those things. The State should not be in the business of saying this house here is not a social
housing one, but this next that gets built is.
Blissex: "Oh please, this is just two-bit nominalism: "money" then is just the mechanism by which "you want someone else to pay""
Umm, no. In real terms, the someone else who is paying in health care is mainly the health care professional treating you.
"Unless there are ample unused resources, someone will have to pay."
But in all modern capitalist countries there are ample unused resources as far as the eye can see. Medicine is one way to use
them up, nearly cost-free, and all benefit. Most people value "not being dead" highly. As Paul Samuelson said responding to stupid
worries about the cost of the US health care system, so it's 15% (or whatever). It's the best 15% of the economy.
The real problem is that "socialized medicine" is too efficient in real terms, and doesn't create corrupt and powerful satrapies
to demand public money, as the US health system does. Since the UK has the most efficient health care system, it has the least
real resource "someone has to pay" problem, but it causes the biggest demand gap, the true longterm, macro problem. The opposite
for the USA. The real right wing concern is that the underpeople get health care at all, not some smokescreen triviality about
nominal taxation.
Most written about health care, as about war, follows the backwards, mainstream way. C Adams is following the correct, MMT/Keynesian
way. If that is two-bit nominalism, we need more of it.
Until recently I haven't been closely following the controversy between Wikipedia and
popular anti-imperialist activists like John Pilger, George Galloway, Craig Murray, Neil Clark,
Media Lens, Tim Hayward and Piers Robinson.
Wikipedia has always been biased in favor of
mainstream CNN/CIA narratives, but until recently I hadn't seen much evidence that this was due to
anything other than the fact that Wikipedia is a crowdsourced project and most people believe
establishment-friendly narratives. That all changed when I
read
this article by Craig Murra
y, which is primarily what I'm interested in directing people's
attention to here.
The article, and
this one which
prompted it by
Five Filters
, are definitely worth reading in their entirety, because
their contents are jaw-dropping. In short there is an account which has been making edits to
Wikipedia entries for many nears called Philip Cross. In the last five years this account's
operator has not taken a single day off–no weekends, holidays, nothing–and according to their time
log they work extremely long hours adhering to a very strict, clockwork schedule of edits
throughout the day as an ostensibly unpaid volunteer.
This is bizarre enough, but the fact that this account is undeniably focusing with
malicious intent on anti-imperialist activists who question establishment narratives and the fact
that its behavior is being aggressively defended by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales means that
there's some serious fuckery afoot.
"Philip Cross", whoever or whatever that is, is absolutely head-over-heels for depraved Blairite
war whore Oliver Kamm, whom Cross mentioned as a voice of authority
no
fewer than
twelve times
in an entry about the media analysis duo known collectively as
Media Lens. Cross harbors a special hatred for British politician and broadcaster George Galloway,
who opposed the Iraq invasion as aggressively as Oliver Kamm cheered for it, and on whose Wikipedia
entry Cross has made an astonishing 1,800 edits.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of constant malicious editing, as well as outright admissions
of bias by the Twitter account linked to Philip Cross, Jimmy Wales has been extremely and
conspicuously defensive of the account's legitimacy while ignoring evidence provided to him.
"Or, just maybe, you're wrong,"
Wales
said
to a Twitter user inquiring about the controversy the other day. "Show me the diffs or
any evidence of any kind. The whole claim appears so far to be completely ludicrous."
"Riiiiight,"
said
the
totally not-triggered Wales in another response. "You are really very very far from the facts of
reality here. You might start with even one tiny shred of some kind of evidence, rather than
just making up allegations out of thin air. But you won't because trolling."
"You clearly have very very little idea how it works,"
Wales
tweeted
in another response. "If your worldview is shaped by idiotic conspiracy sites, you
will have a hard time grasping reality."
As outlined in the articles by Murray and
Five Filters
, the evidence is there
in abundance.
Five Filters
lays out "diffs" (editing changes) in black and white
showing clear bias by the Philip Cross account, a very slanted perspective is clearly and
undeniably documented, and yet Wales denies and aggressively ridicules any suggestion that
something shady could be afoot. This likely means that Wales is in on whatever game the Philip
Cross account is playing.
Which means the entire site is likely involved in some sort of
psyop by a party which stands to benefit from keeping the dominant narrative slanted in a
pro-establishment direction.
A 2016 Pew Research Center report found that Wikipedia was getting some
18
billion page views per month
. Billion with a 'b'. Youtube
recently
announced
that it's going to be showing text from Wikipedia articles on videos about conspiracy
theories to help "curb fake news". Plainly the site is extremely important in the battle for
control of the narrative about what's going on in the world. Plainly its leadership fights on one
side of that battle, which happens to be the side that favors western oligarchs and intelligence
agencies.
How many other "Philip Cross"-like accounts are there on Wikipedia?
Has the site always functioned an establishment psyop designed to manipulate public perception of
existing power structures, or did that start later? I don't know.
Right now all I know
is that an agenda very beneficial to the intelligence agencies, war profiteers and plutocrats of
the western empire is clearly and undeniably being advanced on the site, and its founder is telling
us it's nothing. He is lying. Watch him closely.
* * *
Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing my daily articles is
to get on the mailing list for my
website
,
so you'll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely
reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking
me on
Facebook
,
following my antics on
Twitter
, checking
out my
podcast
, throwing some
money into my hat on
Patreon
or
Paypal
,
or
buying my new book
Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers
.
Vote up!
13
Vote down!
0
reading the "talk" tab page background on ANY wiki page is ALWAYS
recommended - it shows the content war by different editors. - Anything on
Israel / Palestine for example.
Post or edit anything on that shit site that goes against the
ziomaster's narrative and you will be blocked. Wikipedia just rehashes
all the bullshit from the corporate media on Television.
Metabunk and Rationalwiki are the exact same thing too.
Does the pope shit in the woods after playing with little boys?
95% of things placed in top 3 of
Google search
are PSYOP. The remaining 5% are those pesky old
school blackhat SEO guys that know how to game the search engine.
Wikipedia is as fake as WWE is. But at least WWE has some juicy
stuff:
The Zionist side is ALWAYS the side that is
presented.
Eustace Mullins was a
truly kind individual. His only crime was to not
swallow the hogwash Koolaid of the ZioNAZI. For that
he was followed by the FBI for 30 years.
But of course all the standard tropes are
trotted out on Wikipedia. I suspect that Wiki / Wales
gets a lot of funding from YOU KNOW WHO. Same people
who has the Germans put people in jail for thought
crimes.
You are only safe when you are looking at a
page regarding theoretical mathematics. But not
mathematics about global warming.
among scientists, wiki is well known for utility
and accuracy of boring stuff like the thermal
conductivity of copper. any controversy involved,
and it is worthless.
Wikipedia is completely unreliable. Especially when it comes
to politics.
You can find LIES GALORE. You can edit the Lies out,
document them and backup with sourced justification; but within
an hour they will have reset the Lie.
Aaaand finally: James Corbett of Corbettreport.com, a prolific documentary
filmmaker--whose docs are always top rated on topdocumentaryfilms.com, doesn't
have a wikipedia page, despite MANY people trying to create one for him. Why is
that, you ask? Because they are extremely subversive to the CIA and the
established globalist order, and therefore that fact of suppression of Corbett
suggests coordination between Wikipedia and the globalist thalassocracy of the
empire of the city
How much 'filtering' is being done, and through what channels do filtering
requests arrive? (if any)
Lots of news outlets have changed over the last few years. Formerly respected
papers have been reduced to tabloids. The Washington Post is now the Bezos Blog,
for example. Twitter is popping up 'warnings' about 'fake news'. All the radio
and TV channels run identical bullshit war stories within minutes of each other.
And Wikipedia has been going downhill for years.
So, is ZH immune to the effluvia from the ministry of truth?
Nice article, but there is a much better way of proving that Wikipedia=CIA. It's
true, everybody can edit Wikipedia, but not everyone gets to keep their edits.
Here is an experiment that everyone can carry out
:
If
you edit well or create a new informative page on something of no interest to the
FBI or CIA, say astronomy or physics, no problem, your contribution stays. But
try to provide evidence--and there is plenty--that the government was involved in
the assassinations of MLK, JFK, RFK or the demolitions of 9/11, and you'll be
"reverted" (their term) within FIVE minutes. Try to quote Russia's version of
the Crimeans' overwhelming vote to join Russia, and you'll be "reverted" lickety
split. Provide evidence that Winston Churchill--lionized by our rulers--was an
imperialist, a racist, a champion of inequality, and the contribution will
disappear while you pause your honest labors for a cup of tea! Our rulers are
masters of propaganda, and Wikipedia is just one of their brilliantly vicious
outlets--created, controlled, and edited to brainwash us!
The reason we are not given a straight answer as to why we're meant to want our institutions
fighting an information war on our behalf (instead of allowing us to sort out fact from fiction
on our own like adults) is because the answer is ugly.
As
we discussed last time , the only real power in this world is the ability to control the
dominant narrative about what's going on. The only reason government works the way it works,
money operates the way it operates, and authority rests where it rests is because everyone has
agreed to pretend that that's how things are. In actuality, government, money and authority are
all man-made conceptual constructs and the collective can choose to change them whenever it
wants. The only reason this hasn't happened in our deeply dysfunctional society yet is because
the plutocrats who rule us have been successful in controlling the narrative.
Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. This has always been the case. In many
societies throughout history a guy who made alliances with the biggest, baddest group of armed
thugs could take control of the narrative by killing people until the dominant narrative was
switched to "That guy is our leader now; whatever he says goes." In modern western society, the
real leaders are less obvious, and the narrative is controlled by propaganda.
Propaganda is what keeps Americans accepting things like the fake two-party system, growing
wealth inequality, medicine money being spent on bombs to be dropped on strangers in stupid
immoral wars, and a government which simultaneously creates steadily increasing secrecy
privileges for itself and steadily decreasing privacy rights for its citizenry. It's also what
keeps people accepting that a dollar is worth what it's worth, that personal property works the
way it works, that the people on Capitol Hill write the rules, and that you need to behave a
certain way around a police officer or he can legally kill you.
And therein lies the answer to the question. You are not being protected from
"disinformation" by a compassionate government who is deeply troubled to see you believing
erroneous beliefs, you are being herded back toward the official narrative by a power
establishment which understands that losing control of the narrative means losing power. It has
nothing to do with Russia, and it has nothing to do with truth. It's about power, and the
unexpected trouble that existing power structures are having dealing with the public's newfound
ability to network and share information about what is going on in the world.
In reply to several commenters, who have questioned why "neoliberalism" is not simply
another name for the political expression/ambitions of the greed of the rich-and-powerful,
aka conservatism.
Although it serves the purposes of the rich-and-powerful rather well, I think
"neoliberalism" as a rhetorical engine and set of ideas is the ideology of the 9.9%, the
chattering classes of professionals and bureaucrats who need a cover story for their own
participation in running the world for the benefit of the 0.1% These are the people who need
to rationalize what they do and cooperate and coordinate among themselves and that's a
challenge because of their sheer numbers.
If you try to examine neoliberalism as a set of aims or values or interests, I think you
miss the great accomplishment of neoliberalism as a mechanism of social cooperation.
Neoliberalism says it aims at freedom and social welfare and innovation and other good
things. If neoliberalism said it aimed to make the richest 0.1% richer at the expense of
everyone else, it would provoke political opposition from the 99% for obvious reasons.
Including opposition from the 9.9% whom they need to run things, to run the state, run the
corporations.
Not being clear on what your true objectives are tends to be an obstacle to organizing
large groups to accomplish those objectives. Being clear on the mission objective is a
prerequisite for organizational effectiveness in most circumstances. The genius of
neoliberalism is such that it is able to achieve a high degree of coordination in detail
across large numbers of people, institutions, even countries while still professing aims and
values to which few object. A high degree of coordination on implementing a political policy
agenda that is variously parasitical or predatory on the 90%.
You can say this is just hypocrisy of a type the rich have always engaged in, and that
would be true. The predatory rich have always had to disguise their predatory or parasitical
activity, and have often done so by embracing, for example, shows of piety or philanthropy.
So, neoliberalism falls into a familiar albeit broad category.
What distinguishes neoliberalism is how good it is at coordinating the activities of the
9.9% in delivering the goods for the 0.1%. For a post-industrial economy, neoliberalism is
better for the mega-rich than Catholicism was for the feudalism of the High Middle Ages. I do
not think most practicing neoliberals among the 9.9% even think of themselves as
hypocrites.
"Free markets" has been the key move, the fulcrum where anodyne aims and values to which
no one can object meet the actual detailed policy implementation by the state. Creating a
"market" removes power and authority from the state and transfers it to private actors able
to apply financial wealth to managing things, and then, because an actual market cannot
really do the job that's been assigned, a state bureaucracy has to be created to manage the
administrative details and financial flows -- work for the 9.9%
As a special bonus, the insistence on treating a political economy organized in fact by
large public and private bureaucracies as if it is organized by and around "markets"
introduces a high degree of economic agnatology into the conventional political rhetoric.
[This comment sounded much clearer when I conceived of it in the shower this morning. I am
sorry if the actual comment is too abstract or tone deaf. I will probably have to try again
at a later date.]
Thanks to Friday's carefully crafted deep-state disclosures by WaPo and the Times , along
with actual reporting by the Daily Caller 's Chuck
Ross, we now know it wasn't a mole at all - but 73-year-old University of Cambridge professor
Stefan Halper, a US citizen, political veteran and longtime US Intelligence asset enlisted by
the FBI to befriend and spy on three members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 US election
.
the "American academic who teaches in Britain" described by The Times,
Seems like Carter Page knew what he was talking about in this May 11 tweet.
Carter Page, Ph.D. @carterwpage
No @JackPosobiec, not me. But if what I'm hearing alleged is correct, it's a guy I know
who splits most his time between inside the Beltway and in one of the other Five Eyes
countries.
And if so, it'd be typical: swamp creatures putting themselves first.
4:17 AM - May 11, 2018
I think Rudy's flipped seeking redemption for his role in 911.
The deep state is not going down quietly or without a fight and they are in full attack
mode. Multiple questionable instances yesterday to change news cycle, plus a week worths of
leaks by major media mouthpieces justifying their crimes.
What's great is they are so caught up in their nest of lies, each new lie just contradicts
previous ones and exposes more of the truth.
Now the question is: How do you bring these people to justice without starting a violent
backlash / Civil War?
The cognitive dissonance is very strong on the left and they've fallen victim to hive
mentality, simply regurgitating talking points they hear through pop culture and media. We
are so afraid of not fitting in (as a society) that we will willingly accept completely
contradicting "facts", defend them, and deride those who disagree. Further, there is no room
for disagreement, for they are the party of tolerance, and if you disagree with them, you are
intolerant, which cannot be tolerated in an open and free society (see how that works?).
The real hope is people are able to break the spell and think for themselves again. But I
worry it's too late. A generation of children assaulted with excessive vaccination are now
adults and it shows...
People in the USA better get a grip real fast and realize that it's not Russia, China or
Iran that is the real enemy of Americans, it's the British . . . the money gnomes in London
and the "Queens men". They've caused more problems for the USA in the last 100+ years than
the other three combined many times over.
Let's see. Money was exchanged, foreign govt agents and contractors hired. The FBI knew
about Hillary's criminal enterprises and illegal dissemination of classified documents and
apparently has been complicit in helping or protecting her. The NYT and WaPo along with the
network media regurgitated much of the anti-Trump rhetoric together in sync with the tsunami
of fake news, either in creating it or knowingly participating in it. No wonder the news
media in a sudden shift have been trying to paint themselves as now being on the other side
of this Russkie Fubar after they promoted it 24/7 for two years without let-up. What's the
penalty for trying to overthrow the President of the United States? Lots of folks here are
sitting on potential indictments for treason. Enough talk. With all they got from the
Congressional hearings, and now this, it's time!!!... for Trump to start draining.
Because that is what (((they))) want. Do a little research on how that came about in the
US you will find that the same ole (((culprits))) got the law changed to their benefit of
course.
"... Another defect of neoliberal economics is the doctrine's denial that resources are finite and their exhaustion a heavy cost not born by those who exploit the resources. Many local and regional civilizations have collapsed from exhaustion of the surrounding resources. Entire books have been written about this, but it is not part of neoliberal economics. Supplement study of Hudson with study of ecological economists such as Herman Daly. ..."
Readers ask me how they can learn economics, what books to read, what university economics
departments to trust. I receive so many requests that it is impossible to reply individually.
Here is my answer.
There is only one way to learn economics, and that is to read Michael Hudson's books. It is
not an easy task. You will need a glossary of terms. In some of Hudson's books, if memory
serves, he provides a glossary, and his recent book "J Is for Junk Economics" defines the
classical economic terms that he uses. You will also need patience, because Hudson sometimes
forgets in his explanations that the rest of us don't know what he knows.
The economics taught today is known as neoliberal. This economics differs fundamentally from
classical economics that Hudson represents. For example, classical economics stresses taxing
economic rent instead of labor and real investment, while neo-liberal economics does the
opposite.
An economic rent is unearned income that accrues to an owner from an increase in value that
he did nothing to produce. For example, a new road is built at public expense that opens land
to development and raises its value, or a transportation system is constructed in a city that
raises the value of nearby properties. These increases in values are economic rents. Classical
economists would tax away the increase in values in order to pay for the road or transportation
system.
Neoliberal economists redefined all income as earned. This enables the financial system to
capitalize economic rents into mortgages that pay interest. The higher property values created
by the road or transportation system boost the mortgage value of the properties. The
financialization of the economy is the process of drawing income away from the purchases of
goods and services into interest and fees to financial entities such as banks. Indebtedness and
debt accumulate, drawing more income into their service until there is no purchasing power left
to drive the economy.
For example, formerly in the US lenders would provide a home mortgage whose service required
up to 25% of the family's monthly income. That left 75% of the family's income for other
purchases. Today lenders will provide mortgages that eat up half of the monthly income in
mortgage service, leaving only 50% of family income for other purchases. In other words, a
financialized economy is one that diverts purchasing power away from productive enterprise into
debt service.
Hudson shows that international trade and foreign debt also comprise a financialization
process, only this time a country's entire resources are capitalized into a mortgage. The West
sells a country a development plan and a loan to pay for it. When the debt cannot be serviced,
the country is forced to impose austerity on the population by cutbacks in education, health
care, public support systems, and government employment and also to privatize public assets
such as mineral rights, land, water systems and ports in order to raise the capital with which
to pay off the loan. Effectively, the country passes into foreign ownership. This now happens
even to European Community members such as Greece and Portugal.
Another defect of neoliberal economics is the doctrine's denial that resources are
finite and their exhaustion a heavy cost not born by those who exploit the resources. Many
local and regional civilizations have collapsed from exhaustion of the surrounding resources.
Entire books have been written about this, but it is not part of neoliberal economics.
Supplement study of Hudson with study of ecological economists such as Herman Daly.
The neglect of external costs is a crippling failure of neoliberal economics. An external
cost is a cost imposed on a party that does not share in the income from the activity that
creates the cost. I recently wrote about the external costs of real estate speculators.
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/26/capitalism-works-capitalists/
Fracking, mining, oil and gas exploration, pipelines, industries, manufacturing, waste
disposal, and so on have heavy external costs associated with the activities.
Neoliberal economists treat external costs as a non-problem, because they theorize that the
costs can be compensated, but they seldom are. Oil spills result in companies having to pay
cleanup costs and compensation to those who suffered economically from the oil spill, but most
external costs go unaddressed. If external costs had to be compensated, in many cases the costs
would exceed the value of the projects. How, for example, do you compensate for a polluted
river? If you think that is hard, how would the short-sighted destroyers of the Amazon rain
forest go about compensating the rest of the world for the destruction of species and for the
destructive climate changes that they are setting in motion? Herman Daly has pointed out that
as Gross Domestic Product accounting does not take account of external costs and resource
exhaustion, we have no idea if the value of output is greater than all of the costs associated
with its production. The Soviet economy collapsed, because the value of outputs was less than
the value of inputs.
Supply-side economics, with which I am associated, is not an alternative theory to
neoliberal economics. Supply-side economics is a successful correction to neoliberal
macroeconomic management. Keynesian demand management resulted in stagflation and worsening
Phillips Curve trade-offs between employment and inflation. Supply-side economics cured
stagflation by reversing the economic policy mix. I have told this story many times. You can
find a concise explanation in my short book, "The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalsim." This
book also offers insights into other failures of neoliberal economics and for that reason would
serve as a background introduction to Hudson's books.
I can make some suggestions, but the order in which you read Michael Hudson is up to you. "J
is for Junk Economics" is a way to get information in short passages that will make you
familiar with the terms of classical economic analysis. "Killing the Host" and "The Bubble and
Beyond" will explain how an economy run to maximize debt is an economy that is
self-destructing. "Super Imperialism" and "Trade, Development and Foreign Debt" will show you
how dominant countries concentrate world economic power in their hands. "Debt and Economic
Renewal in the Ancient Near East" is the story of how ancient economies dying from excessive
debt renewed their lease on life via debt forgiveness.
Once you learn Hudson, you will know real economics, not the junk economics marketed by
Nobel prize winners in economics, university economic departments, and Wall Street economists.
Neoliberal economics is a shield for financialization, resource exhaustion, external costs, and
capitalist exploitation.
Neoliberal economics is the world's reigning economics. Russia is suffering much more from
neoliberal economics than from Washington's economic sanctions. China herself is overrun with
US trained neoliberal economists whose policy advice is almost certain to put China on the same
path to failure as all other neoliberal economies.
It is probably impossible to change anything for two main reasons. One is that so many
greed-driven private economic activities are protected by neoliberal economics. So many
exploitative institutions and laws are in place that to overturn them would require a more
thorough revolution than Lenin's. The other is that economists have their entire human capital
invested in neoliberal economics. There is scant chance that they are going to start over with
study of the classical economists.
Neoliberal economics is an essential part of The Matrix, the false reality in which
Americans and Europeans live. Neoliberal economics permits an endless number of economic lies.
For example, the US is said to be in a long economic recovery that began in June 2009, but the
labor force participation rate has fallen continuously throughout the period of alleged
recovery. In previous recoveries the participation rate has risen as people enter the work
force to take advantage of the new jobs.
In April the unemployment rate is claimed to have fallen to 3.9 percent, but the
participation rate fell also. Neoliberal economists explain away the contradiction by claiming
that the falling participation rate is due to the retirement of the baby boom generation, but
BLS jobs statistics indicate that those 55 and older account for a large percentage of the new
jobs during the alleged recovery. This is the age class of people forced into the part time
jobs available by the absence of interest income on their retirement savings. What is really
happening is that the unemployment rate does not include discouraged workers, who have given up
searching for jobs as there are none to be found. The true measure of the unemployment rate is
the decline in the labor force participation rate, not a 3.9 percent rate concocted by not
counting those millions of Americans who cannot find jobs. If the unemployment rate really was
3.9 percent, there would be labor shortages and rising wages, but wages are stagnant. These
anomalies pass without comment from neoliberal economists.
The long expansion since June 2009 might simply be a statistical artifact due to the
under-measurement of inflation, which inflates the GDP figure. Inflation is under-estimated,
because goods and services that rise in price are taken out of the index and less costly
substitutes are put in their place and because price increases are explained away as quality
improvements. In other words, statistical manipulation produces the favorable picture required
by The Matrix.
Since the financial collapse caused by the repeal of Glass-Steagall and by financial
deregulation, the Federal Reserve has robbed tens of millions of American savers by driving
real interest rates down to zero for the sole purpose of saving the "banks too big to fail"
that financial deregulation created. A handful of banks has been provided with free money -- in
addition to the money that the Federal Reserve created in order to take the banks' bad
derivative investments off their hands -- to put on deposit with the Fed from which to collect
interest payments and with which to speculate and to drive up stock prices.
In other words, for a decade the economic policy of the United States has been run for the
benefit of a few highly concentrated financial interests at the expense of the American people.
The economic policy of the United States has been used to create economic rents for the
mega-rich.
Neoliberal economists point out that during the 1950s the labor force participation rate was
much lower than today and, thereby, they imply that the higher rates prior to the current
"recovery" are an anomaly. Neoliberal economists have no historical knowledge as the past is of
no interest to them. They do not even know the history of economic thought. Whether from
ignorance or intentional deception, neoliberal economists ignore that the lower labor force
participation rates of the 1950s reflect a time when married women were at home, not in the
work force. In those halcyon days, one earner was all it took to sustain a family. I remember
the days when the function of a married woman was to provide household services for the
family.
But capitalists were not content to exploit only one member of a family. They wanted more,
and by using economic policy to suppress pay while fomenting inflation, they drove married
women into the work force, imposing huge external costs on the family, child-raising, relations
between spouses, and on the children themselves. The divorce rate has exploded to 50 percent
and single-parent households are common in America.
In effect, unleashed Capitalism has destroyed America. Privatization is now eating away
Europe. Russia is on the same track as a result of its neoliberal brainwashing by American
economists. China's love of success and money could doom this rising Asian giant as well if the
government opens China to foreign finance capital and privatizes public assets that end up in
foreign hands.
"... 'It is difficult to get Artificial Intelligence to understand something, when the Research and Development funding it depends upon its not understanding it' ..."
"... dēfenestrātiō, ..."
"... 'If there is such a phenomenon as absolute evil, it consists of treating another human being as a thing ..."
"... 'The Shockwave Rider ..."
"... This small article a polemic against neoliberal hegemony; in particular the emerging issue of 'surplus population' as related to technological displacement in context of a free market, an issue purposive to such hegemony which as an 'elephant growing in the panopticon' i.e. not to be mentioned? ..."
"... – 'One dimensionality in, one dimensionality out' ..."
"... 'Farewell to the Working Class' ..."
"... It is a relatively small step from ' the death of thought' to 'the death of Life' ..."
"... Under neoliberal orthodoxy the political utility of the 'Proles' and in particular the 'Lumpenproletariat', alas, is as to but fear as a 'stick'; a basis of control and manipulation same sense as Upton Sinclair explicated 'carrot' contingent by way of synonym seen: to wit; accept control and manipulation as 'rewarded' or be 'expelled' ..."
'It is difficult to get Artificial Intelligence to understand something, when the Research and Development funding it depends
upon its not understanding it' –
'If there is such a phenomenon as absolute evil, it consists of treating another human being as a thing '
John Brunner 'The Shockwave Rider '
This small article a polemic against neoliberal hegemony; in particular the emerging issue of 'surplus population' as related
to technological displacement in context of a free market, an issue purposive to such hegemony which as an 'elephant growing in the
panopticon' i.e. not to be mentioned?
The central premise is that Artificial Intelligence (AI) + Robotics comprise a nefarious as formulaic temptation to the elite
of the 'Technetronic era' as Zbigniew Brzezinski put it: this consistent with a determinism as stems ontologically from 'Empiricism'
form of a 'One Dimensionality'
as Marcuse phrased it over five Decades ago; and which thru being but mere simulacra, AI and Robotics represent an ontological imperative
potentially expropriated under pathology to denial of Kant's concept of 'categorical imperative'? (That Kant did not subscribe to
determinism is acknowledged). The neoliberal concepts of 'Corporatism' and 'free market' are powerful examples of this 'one dimensionality'
which is clearly pathological, a topic notably explored by
Joel Bakan concerning the pursuit of profit within a Corporatist framework.
– 'One dimensionality in, one dimensionality out' – so it goes ontologically as to some paraphrase of
GIGO as trending alas way of 'technological determinism'
towards an 'Epitaph for Biodiversity' as would be – way of 'Garbage' or 'Junk' un apperceived as much as 'retrospection' non occurrent
indeed -and where 'Farewell to the Working Class' as
André Gorz conceived to assume an entirely new meaning: -this to some denouement of 'Dystopian Nightmare' as opposed to 'Utopian
Dream', alas; such the 'Age of Leisure' as 'beckoning' to be not for the majority or ' Demos', but rather for the 'technetronic
elite' and their 'AI' and Robotics – such 'leisure' being as to a 'freedom' pathological and facilitated by the absence of conscience
as much as morality; such the 'farewell'; such the defenestration of 'surplus' , such the 'Age' we 'live' within as to 'expropriation'
and 'arrogation' to amount to 'Death by Panopticon' such the 'apotheosis'?
It is being so cheerful which keeps these small quarters going.
But digression.
– It is a relatively small step from ' the death of thought' to 'the death of Life' under Neoliberal Orthodoxy as
proving to be the most toxic ideology ever known – such the hegemony as a deliberative, shift of the ' Overton Window' currently
occurring as to trend deterministic; such the mere necrotrophy as a 'defenestration' – and the 'one percent' but a deadly collective
of parasitic orifice? For what is 'Empiricism' when implemented thru AI and Robotic Technology in a Corporatist economy as but a
'selective investment' as to Research and Development by elite 'private interests', which to a determinism so evidently entailing
a whole raft of 'consequence' ; such the means, such the production, such the 'phenomenology' as 'owned' indeed? Under pathology,
selectivity is impaired to point of 'militarization'?
But foremost amongst said 'raft' of consequence – the concept of 'classification' as incorporates methodological reduction of
the particular to a composite of generalities so typical of 'Science' as expropriated; the fruition thereof replicated not least
thru 'Consumerism' – and 'Lifestyle' – as much as 'Life' reduced as much as abrogated to but correlation way of 'possession' of 'things':
this as said replication expressed as much 'thru' Linnaeus as Marx concerning 'class'- and as results in concepts' Incorporated'
such as the 'Overton Window' – as will be explored by way of 'extrapolation' below? The debasing of identity as a correlate of possessions
as a necessary 'abrogation' by way of engineered 'bio hack' is only furthered, such the loss of dimensionality as a potential, by
such as social media ? An excellent multimedia illustration
of such loss is found here.
It to be noted that for Empiricism the concept of 'good' and 'evil' entails an extra dimensionality as 'metaphysical' – and that
'Politics' so deconstructed despite abuse under orthodoxy as to 'mitigation' remains as 'Moral Economics' – this despite the mitigative
contention of neoliberal orthodoxy that there no morality in the 'synonymy'; to a pragmatic as 'Utilitarian' point of a
'Killing the Host' prevailing
at paradigmatic as much as Geopolitical level as but explicative of a 'necrotrophy'; as much as the 'defenestration' as euphemism
herein proposed this small article would explicate?
Kudos to Michael Hudson for exposing, and continuing to expose, the 'death of thought' which Neoliberalism as an
orthodoxy as but a mere 'racket' of 'transfer of resources' represents.
... ... ...
Under neoliberal orthodoxy the political utility of the 'Proles' and in particular the 'Lumpenproletariat', alas, is as to
but fear as a 'stick'; a basis of control and manipulation same sense as Upton Sinclair explicated 'carrot' contingent by way of
synonym seen: to wit; accept control and manipulation as 'rewarded' or be 'expelled' ; be but as a 'Prole' subsisting and awaiting
death, such the economic incarceration as 'CAFO' epitomises the cheapening of life under a hegemony as has corollary of alienation,
marginalization and impoverishment wielded under Dystopian imperative; this to a 'transfer of resources' from ' Eros ' to
' Thanatos ' reinforced thru contingency of profit such the 'ponerology' of 'Biodiversity' reduced by way of paradigm Geopolitical?
All of these events are CIA/Mossad/MI6. All of them.
From 9/11 to mass shootings, al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, white supremecists and even
Antifa, all funded, trained by the state, with our tax dollars.
Fighting wars: The United States has been fighting wars nonstop since its military invaded
Afghanistan in October 2001. That's almost 17 years of invasions, occupations, air campaigns,
drone strikes, special operations raids, naval air and missile attacks, and so much else,
from the Philippines to Pakistan, Afghanistan to Syria, Libya to Niger isn't fighting
unending wars across thousands of miles of the planet for almost 17 years without end, while
making the president into a global assassin, just a tad extreme?
Of course it is. But despite the title of the article, I can't help but notice that most
of it concentrates on the 16 of those 17 years that happen to have occurred before the Trump
"caliphate". But why should Tom Englehardt be expected to get such trivial details correct?
After all, Tom turned out to be wrong when he ominously warned us about the dangers of Trump
getting us into another Korean war.
Tom's own words from July 9th, 2017 haven't aged well
If hostilities broke out and spiraled out of control, as they might, countless people
could die, nuclear weapons could indeed be used for the first time since 1945, and parts of
Asia could be ravaged (including possibly areas of Japan). What a second Korean War might
mean, in other words, is almost beyond imagining.
the officials he appointed went to work to transform the very refugees we had such a
hand in creating into terrifying bogeymen, potentially the most dangerous and extreme
people on the planet, and then turned to the task of ensuring that none of them would ever
arrive in this country. Doesn't that seem like an extreme set of acts and responses?
No, Tom. It seems like normal behavior from people who aren't ethnomasochists. I'm not
some kind of -phobic with an irrational fear if I want my descendants to not live in a
wartorn country they may eventually end up suffering a total genocide at the hands of these
"widows and orphans" (read: military-aged males who think European lands are up for grabs and
will be theirs in the future).
You see, the normal person who voted for Trump wanted what his surface-level politics
during the campaign trail were about. Not the stuff he's actually been doing which no one
voted for (yes, democracy is a bad system with no accountability,) but the stuff he talked
about. The end to this neoliberal insanity which you support most of. If you really cared so
much about the environment, you wouldn't be for mass migration. If you really cared about
minimizing conflict, you wouldn't be for mass migration since migration is the same as war in
its effects and eventual outcome.
It is not some arbitrary preference that I want a territory maintained for my kind and not
invaded by unending migration of alien peoples whom we are poked, prodded, pressured, coerced
and forced to miscegenate ourselves out of existence with by social engineers bent on a
European genocide, which they are beginning to get louder and louder with their intent on
with each passing year and the constant gloating that they think "in the future, there won't
BE any white people! and that's a good thing!"
The reason we care more about these terrorist attacks on our soil is that we expect them
to do as they do in their own countries, but the glaring fact is the people doing this in our
countries aren't us, and never will be us. They are interlopers we didn't invite in; they
were invited in from the top down with no consent.
Speaking of which, people own weapons in the US because they can and because they don't
trust their government. Given what that government has done for the last 50+ years, why
should they? People in other countries would do the same were they not such totalitarian
nightmare states crushing down on their native population, like in Britain. Speaking of
bogeymen by the way, you want to pin this all on Trump when the material conditions for much
of what you wring your hands about existed well before he even announced his run. Criticize
the fact that he isn't doing what he was elected to do. Don't try to concoct some lame duck
grand narrative that he caused all of these problems, because he didn't.
The reason America is becoming "extreme" is because it's no longer a real, solvent
country. No longer a nation–a coherent people with real, concrete commonalities. It is
many people vying for power and handouts and patronage, many of whom share nothing in common
at all. I share no peoplehood with Africans, Arabs, Mestizos and a host of others who've been
flooded in over the last several decades and have transformed the country into something it
manifestly as per the census data was not just decades back.
I share no peoplehood with Africans, Arabs, Mestizos and a host of others who've been
flooded in over the last several decades and have transformed the country into something it
manifestly as per the census data was not just decades back.
I'm willing to bet you share a lot more personhood with those people you listed than the
people who "own" your country. BTW, the people who "own" your country most likely hate your
guts, and consider you expendable if you ever get in their way.
" This subject came to my mind recently thanks to a story I noticed about another extreme
wedding slaughter "
Better late than never.
How long it is ago that a Malaysian president spoke to mainly western diplomats, and asked
the question 'who are the terrorists, those who, at 17 km height push buttons in
B-52′s, or those who give their lives on the ground ?', I do not remember.
The diplomats left during the speech.
UN expert on human rights De Zaya's wanted, suppose he does not live any more, Great
Britain and the USA persecuted for bombing German cities in WWII, just killing women,
children and old men.
Dresden is the best known example, alas it is not known that even small towns as Anklam were
bombed.
And then, when began all this ?
Churchill saw the genocide in what is N Afghanistan as a necessary act.
And of course the Muslim religion was to blame.
Winston Churchill, 'The Story of the Malakand Field Force', 1898, 2004, New York
Ian Hernon, 'Britain's Forgotten Wars, Colonial Campaigns of the 19th Century', 2003, 2007,
Chalford – Stroud
The last book also describes this genocide, but one of the most bloody massacres described is
against the Sikh army.
I'd like to thank Unz for this brief comic relief on their site. Sometimes the affairs in the
world seem too much and a good laugh every now and then is necessary. For example Bashir
Al-Assad killing his own people on a regular basis was hysterical!! Imagine him getting Sarin
gas from ISIS depots paid for by Israel and the United States just so he could get the same
United States to bomb him! That's like saying Obama was a weak president for NOT attacking
Syria when he was merely informed as to who was REALLY not killing Syrian civilians because,
as Putin proved, Assad didn't have those weapons. What was really funny was that America does
not have extremists in charge so when we kill civilians it must be an accident!
"Its national security budget is larger than those of the next eight countries combined "
My favourite statistic is to compare the increase in the formal US "defence" budget ($80
billion) for this year with the total Russian defence budget ($46 billion).
I couldn't agree more, Your comment sums up how a lot of people are feeling. No wonder
Nationalist or Nationalist inspired parties and leaders are emerging all over the European
world, We are waking up and beginning to take our own side
I just cannot believe that you Americans descend to squabbling about who is more virtuous
– Nero or Caligula.
Mr Putin showed that he understands the system perfectly. First he said that he sees no
point in talking to European leaders, since they all take their orders from Washington. Then
he further explained that presidents come and presidents go, but the policies remain exactly
the same.
It's a shame that so few Americans understand their own political system as well as Mr
Putin does.
"However, one thing is, almost by definition, obvious. We are not a nation of extreme acts or
extreme killers. Quite the opposite".
The USA is admirably positioned for security: it controls most of a large isolated
continent, with only Canada and Mexico as immediate neighbours and vast oceans to the sides.
As Jules Jusserand, French Ambassador to the US, remarked in 1910:
"The United States was blessed among nations. On the north, she had a weak neighbour; on
the south, another weak neighbour; on the east, fish; and on the west, fish".
Long before that, Abraham Lincoln said more or less the same thing:
"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify
against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush
us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the
treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a
commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge,
in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be
expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from
abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation
of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide".
- Abraham Lincoln; The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume
I, "Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum,of Springfield, Illinois (January 27, 1838), p.
109.
So it is surprising to find out that the USA has been at war for 93% of its existence.
That means Americans have experienced peace during only 21 years out of 239.
That's rather odd, isn't it, for a country with impregnable natural borders whom no one
has even tried to attack?
"Yes, we make mistakes. Yes, we sometimes kill. Yes, we sometimes even kill the innocent,
however mistakenly".
A very rough estimate suggests that, since 1950, the US government through its armed
forces has killed at the very least 10 million Asians alone. Three million in Korea, the same
in Vietnam and its neighbours, and the same in Iraq. That's without even considering the
dozens of other nations the USA has attacked (and with which, legally, it is still at war
since no peace treaties were ever concluded).
I recently discovered UNZ.COM and was delighted to have found a site with good intelligently
written articles, then I read this utter crap and now I'm wondering
We here in the United States are, of course, eternally shocked by their extremism, their
willingness to kill the innocent without compunction, particularly in the case of Islamist
groups, from the 9/11 attacks to ISIS's more recent slaughters.
Tom appears to be another lackey for Zionism, ready to keep telling lies about those evil
Moozies that supposedly attacked the USA on 9/11, when anyone who still has brain cells left
knows that 9/11 was an Israeli masterminded False Flag with help from traitors in the WH,
the Pentagon, CIA, FBI and NSA. With generous assistance from the Lying MSM.
Take your CIA pres releases elsewhere Mr. Tom, we no longer wish to hear your lies in
support of endless wars for the glory of Apartheid Israel realizing its YINON plan to stretch
Israel from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates and from Turkey to Arabia.
Oded Yinon's "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties"
The nonsense that Assad's army deliberately poisons its own people with chemical weapons
is a well-known false-flag. How could he control his Syrian army if that went on? It is
absolutely ridiculous.
As for 9/11, it was an inside job – with many Israeli "students" laying the
explosives in the THREE buildings at night over a period of months. The fact that no one
lived in them and that a Bush company was responsible for security is all you need to know.
Naturally, there were no Israeli victims – a statistical impossibility if they were not
forewarned.
The most thoroughly amoral, vicious ruling group in the region is the House of Saud. And the
US and the Israelis are both deep into bed with the Saudis.
"Only to those who do not know that many people live in deserts"
People do not "live in deserts" rather they live in settlements which are located in the
desert.
They do not just go out into the blazing sand and throw down blankets and buckets, and
then start "Living in the desert".
And they do not hold bonafide "wedding parties" out in the desert, under the relentless
burning sun, rather they hold their wedding parties in settlements which are located in thte
desert with a modicum of human comforts.
Look friend myself being world traveler, I have been to north africa on more than one
occasion, and I know wtf I am talking about.
AJM "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army vet, and pro jazz artisit.
"... There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies. ..."
"... The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamic fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad's perverse wickedness. ..."
"... a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund ..."
"... In reality, a much more pertinent "framing" of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. ..."
"... The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or to have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. ..."
"... There are a few alternative hypotheses as to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamic extremism in order to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. ..."
"... No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. ..."
"... The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn't that tell them something? Isn't it quite possible that their much-desired "revolution" might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse? ..."
"... In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and "modernization" – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. ..."
"... "In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit -- by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers." The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified "revolution". ..."
"... This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? ..."
"... One could turn that around. Shouldn't such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: "if we can't defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?" ..."
"... The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. ..."
I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated
their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves "communists" in the United
States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual
counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear
opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed.
The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics
of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS).
Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of "permanent revolution" into the hope that every minority uprising
in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream
media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf
of the alleged revolution.
A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled "Revolution and counterrevolution
in Syria" indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism goes wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna,
writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset.
McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group
of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by "beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out". The
source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism
sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies.
But this raises the issue of sources. It is certain that there are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime,
on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly,
he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow
of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamic prisoners
who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamic fanaticism
is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable
evidence of Assad's perverse wickedness.
This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible
to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of
Iran and Russia.
"Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact,
been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of
the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported
to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking
to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund ", according
to McKenna.
Whose "ideological lynchpin"? Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was
not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight
against Islamic extremism.
Neither Russia nor Iran "framed their interventions in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric" but in terms of the fight
against Islamic extremism with Wahhabi roots.
In reality, a much more pertinent "framing" of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow,
is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies.
The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or to have been, the
last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights.
There are a few alternative hypotheses as to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse
Islamic extremism in order to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance
between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks.
It is remarkable that McKenna's long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once
(aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians
as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government "used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the
revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both
implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators)."
No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants
to.
Only one, innocuous mention of Israel! But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less
than twenty-two times !
And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel's de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions,
both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing
billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamic groups,
McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility.
Clearly, the Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin.
Assad is likened to Stalin several times.
This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria.
This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events which are not the Russian revolution. And
even on this pet subject, something is wrong.
The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution
ended in Stalinism. Doesn't that tell them something? Isn't it quite possible that their much-desired "revolution" might
turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse?
Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is
very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in
one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people's democracy. Has this ever
happened?
For the Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil
it out of meanness.
In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western
powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify
the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence
and "modernization" – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution
turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save "the revolution" from
its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted.
Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be "modernized" without
a strong rule.
McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization
and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Yes, there was a Soviet bloc which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support
the progressive development of newly independent countries.
If Bashar's father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna's eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar.
"In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced
forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded
to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit -- by showing the ability to march to the tempo
of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers." The neoliberal turn impoverished
people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified "revolution".
This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has
been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more
a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization?
McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: "If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between
the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain,
or any other advanced capitalist country?"
One could turn that around. Shouldn't such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: "if we can't defeat the oligarchs
in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin
to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?"
The trouble with Trotskyists is that they are always "supporting" other people's more or less imaginary revolutions.
They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to
align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological
alibi for permanent war.
For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go
home and mind their own business.
"... Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing my daily articles is to get on the mailing list for my website , so you'll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . ..."
"... People are not turning to the MSM, they are heading straight to: MoA, ZH, PCR, RT... this is where people now turn to find the truth! The two most frequent, each appearing in six out of seven datasets? ZeroHedge and RT. ..."
"... I have never been a Trump supporter, but IMO the one positive I saw back in the elections is that his character would bring about exactly this loss of trust. Not "He's bad and we can't trust him," so much as the fact that he's polarizing, and will fight everyone, and has inadvertently caused a lot of bad people to expose themselves. ..."
I sometimes try to get
establishment loyalists to explain to me exactly why we're all meant to be terrified of this
"Russian propaganda" thing they keep carrying on about. What is the threat, specifically?
That it makes the public less willing to go to war with Russia and its allies? That it makes us
less trusting of lying, torturing, coup-staging intelligence agencies? Does accidentally catching a
glimpse of that green RT logo turn you to stone like Medusa, or melt your face like in
Raiders
of the Lost Ark
?
"Well, it makes us lose trust in our institutions,"
is the most common
reply.
Okay. So? Where's the threat there?
We know for a fact that we've been lied to
by those institutions. Iraq isn't just something we imagined
. We should be skeptical of
claims made by western governments, intelligence agencies and mass media. How specifically is that
skepticism dangerous?
When you try to get down to the brass tacks of the actual argument being made and demand
specific details about the specific threats we're meant to be worried about, there aren't any to be
found. Nobody's been able to tell me what specifically is so dangerous about westerners being
exposed to the Russian side of international debates, or of Russians giving a platform to one
or
both sides
of an American domestic debate. Even if every single one of the allegations about
Russian bots and disinformation are true (
and
they aren't
), where is the actual clear and present danger? No one can say.
In an absolutely jaw-dropping
article
that you should definitely read in its entirety
, Elizabeth Braw took it upon herself to finally
answer the question of why Russian propaganda is so dangerous, using the following hypothetical
scenario
:
What if Russia suddenly announced that its Baltic Fleet had dispatched an armada towards
Britain? Would most people greet the news with steely resolve in the knowledge that their
governments would know what to do, or would constant Kremlin-influenced reports about the
incompetence of British institutions make them conclude that any resistance was pointless?
I mean, wow. Wow! Just wow. Where to even begin with this?
Back to the aforementioned excerpt. Braw claims that if Russian propaganda isn't shut down or
counteracted, Russia could send a fleet of war ships to attack Britain, and the British people
would react unenthusiastically? Wouldn't cheer loudly enough as the British Navy fought the
Russians? Would have a defeatist emotional demeanor? What exactly is the argument here?
That's seriously her only attempt to directly address the question of where the actual
danger is. Even in the most cartoonishly dramatic hypothetical scenario this Atlantic Council
member can possibly imagine, there's
still
no tangible threat of any kind.
Even
if Russia was directly attacking the United Kingdom at home, and Russian propaganda had somehow
magically dominated all British airwaves and been believed by the entire country, that still
wouldn't have any impact on the British military's ability to fight a naval battle. There's
literally no extent to which you can inflate this "Russian propaganda" hysteria to turn it into a
possible threat to actual people in real life.
Such responses to disinformation are like swatting flies: time-consuming and ineffective. But
not addressing disinformation is ineffective, too. "Western media still have this thing where
they try to be completely balanced, so they'll say, 'the Russians say this, but on the other
hand the Americans say this is not true,' They end up giving a lie and the truth the same
value," noted Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the former president of Estonia.
I just have so many questions. Like, how desperate does a writer have to be for an
expert who can lend credibility to their argument that they have to reach all the way over to a
former president of Estonia?
And on what planet are these people living where Russian
narratives are given the same weight as western narratives by western mainstream media? How can I
get to this fantastical parallel dimension where western media "try to be completely balanced" and
give equal coverage to all perspectives?
Braw argues that,
because Russian propaganda is so dangerous (what with the
threat of British people having insufficient emotional exuberance during a possible naval battle
and all), what is required is a "NATO of infowar", an alliance of western state media that is
tasked with combatting Russian counter-narratives.
Because, in the strange
Dungeons
& Dragons
fantasy fairy world in which Braw penned her article, this isn't already happening.
And of course, here in the real world, it
is
already happening. As
I
wrote recently
, mainstream media outlets have been going out of their minds churning out attack
editorials on anyone who questions the establishment narrative about what happened in Douma. A BBC
reporter
recently
admonished a retired British naval officer
for voicing skepticism of what we're being told
about Syria on the grounds that it might "muddy the waters" of the "information war" that is being
fought against Russia. All day, every day, western mass media are pummeling the public with stories
about how awful and scary Russians are and how everything they say is a lie.
This is because western mass media outlets are owned by western plutocrats, and those
plutocrats have built their empires upon a status quo that they have a vested interest in
preserving,
often to the point where they will
form
alliances with defense and intelligence agencies
to do so. They hire executives and editors who
subscribe to a pro-establishment worldview, who in turn hire journalists who subscribe to a
pro-establishment worldview, and in that way they ensure that all plutocrat-owned media outlets are
advancing pro-plutocrat agendas.
The western empire is ruled by a loose transnational alliance of plutocrats and
secretive government agencies. That loose alliance is your real government, and that government has
the largest state media network in the history of civilization. The mass media propaganda machine
of the western empire makes RT look like your grandmother's Facebook wall.
In that way, we are being propagandized constantly by the people who really rule us. All this
panic about Russian propaganda doesn't exist because our dear leaders have a problem with
propaganda, it exists because they believe only
they
should be allowed to propagandize us.
And, unlike Russian propaganda, western establishment propaganda actually
does
pose a
direct threat to us. By using mass media to manipulate the ways we think and vote, our true rulers
can persuade us to consent to
crushing
austerity measures and political impotence
while the oligarchs grow richer and medicine money
is spent on bombs. When we should all be revolting against an oppressive Orwellian oligarchy, we
are instead lulled to sleep by those same oligarchs and their hired talking heads lying to us about
freedom and democracy.
Russian propaganda is not dangerous. Having access to other ways of looking at
global geopolitics is not dangerous. What absolutely is dangerous is a vast empire concerning
itself with the information and ideas that its citizenry have access to.
Get your
rapey, manipulative fingers out of our minds, please.
If our dear leaders are so worried about our losing faith in our institutions, they
shouldn't be concerning themselves with manipulating us into trusting them, they should be making
those institutions more trustworthy.
Don't manipulate better,
be
better. The fact that an influential think
tank is now openly advocating the former over the latter should concern us all.
* * *
Internet censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing my daily articles is
to get on the mailing list for my
website
,
so you'll get an email notification for everything I publish. My articles and podcasts are entirely
reader and listener-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking
me on
Facebook
,
following my antics on
Twitter
, checking
out my
podcast
, throwing some
money into my hat on
Patreon
or
Paypal
,
or
buying my new book
Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers
.
People are not turning to the MSM, they are heading straight to: MoA, ZH, PCR, RT... this is where people now turn to find
the truth! The two most frequent, each appearing in six out of seven datasets? ZeroHedge and RT.
"Well, it makes us lose trust in our institutions," is the most
common reply.
I have never been a Trump supporter, but IMO the
one positive I saw back in the elections is that his character would
bring about exactly this loss of trust. Not "He's bad and we can't trust
him," so much as the fact that he's polarizing, and will fight everyone,
and has inadvertently caused a lot of bad people to expose themselves.
Why should you trust people who think they have the right to take
whatever amount of your money they want, use it for any purpose they
want, and also who believe they have the right to harass, torture,
stalk, or kill whoever they want, on any pretext they feel like thinking
up?
The Atlantic Council is just another tentacle of the Soros Squid. The man should
have been dealt with as a Nazi collaborator in the aftermath of World War 2.
Unfortunately for humanity, he evaded accountability for his crimes against
humanity during the war.
"... The ultimate goal of the new world order as an ideology is total centralization of economic and governmental power into the hands of a select and unaccountable bureaucracy made up of international financiers. This is governance according the the dictates of Plato's Republic; a delusional fantasy world in which benevolent philosopher kings, supposedly smarter and more objective than the rest of us, rule from on high with scientific precision and wisdom. It is a world where administrators become gods. ..."
"... Large corporations receive unfair legal protection under limited liability as well as outright legislative protection from civil consequences (Monsanto is a perfect example of this). They also receive immense taxpayer funded welfare through bailouts and other sources when they fail to manage their business responsibly. All this while small businesses and entrepreneurs are impeded at every turn by taxation and legal obstacles. ..."
"... Only massive corporations supported by governments are able to exploit the advantages of international manufacturing and labor sources in a way that ensures long term success. Meanwhile economic models that promote true decentralization and localism become impractical because real competition is never allowed. The world has not enjoyed free markets in at least a century. What we have today is something entirely different. ..."
"... The fact is, globalist institutions and central banks permeate almost every corner of the world. Nations like Russia and China are just as heavily tied to the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements and international financial centers like Goldman Sachs as any western government. ..."
"... The first inclination of human beings is to discriminate against ideas and people they see as destructive and counter to their prosperity. Globalists therefore have to convince a majority of people that the very tribalism that has fueled our social evolution and some of the greatest ideas in history is actually the source of our eventual doom. ..."
"... As mentioned earlier, globalists cannot have their "new world order" unless they can convince the masses to ask for it. Trying to implement such a system by force alone would end in failure, because revolution is the natural end result of tyranny. Therefore, the new world order has to be introduced as if it had been formed by coincidence or by providence. Any hint that the public is being conned into accepting global centralization would trigger widespread resistance. ..."
"... This is why globalism is always presented in the mainstream media as a natural extension of civilization's higher achievement. Even though it was the dangerous interdependency of globalism that helped fuel the economic crisis of 2008 and continues to escalate that crisis to this day, more globalism is continually promoted as the solution to the problem. It is spoken of with reverence in mainstream economic publications and political discussions. It receives almost religious praise in the halls of academia. Globalism is socioeconomic ambrosia -- the food of deities. It is the fountain of youth. It is a new Eden. ..."
"... Obviously, this adoration for globalism is nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that globalism is a positive force for humanity, let alone a natural one. There is far more evidence that globalism is a poisonous ideology that can only ever gain a foothold through trickery and through false flags. ..."
When globalists speak publicly about a "new world order" they are speaking about something
very specific and rather sacred in their little cult of elitism. It is not simply the notion
that civilization shifts or changes abruptly on its own; rather, it is their name for a
directed and engineered vision - a world built according to their rules, not a world that
evolved naturally according to necessity.
There are other names for this engineered vision, including the "global economic reset," or
the more general and innocuous term "globalism," but the intention is the same.
The ultimate goal of the new world order as an ideology is total centralization of economic
and governmental power into the hands of a select and unaccountable bureaucracy made up of
international financiers. This is governance according the the dictates of Plato's Republic; a
delusional fantasy world in which benevolent philosopher kings, supposedly smarter and more
objective than the rest of us, rule from on high with scientific precision and wisdom. It is a
world where administrators become gods.
Such precision and objectivity within human systems is not possible, of course . Human
beings are far too susceptible to their own biases and personal desires to be given
totalitarian power over others. The results will always be destruction and disaster. Then, add
to this the fact that the kinds of people who often pursue such power are predominantly
narcissistic sociopaths and psychopaths. If a governmental structure of high level
centralization is allowed to form, it opens a door for these mentally and spiritually broken
people to play out their twisted motives on a global stage.
It is important to remember that sociopaths are prone to fabricating all kinds of high
minded ideals to provide cover for their actions. That is to say, they will adopt a host of
seemingly noble causes to rationalize their scramble for power, but in the end these
"humanitarians" only care about imposing their will on as many people as possible while feeding
off them for as long as time allows.
There are many false promises, misrepresentations and fraudulent conceptions surrounding the
narrative of globalism. Some of them are rather clever and subversive and are difficult to pick
out in the deliberately created fog. The schemes involved in implementing globalism are
designed to confuse the masses with crisis until they end up ASKING for more centralization and
less freedom.
Let's examine some of the most common propaganda methods and arguments behind the push for
globalization and a "new world order"
Con #1: Globalism Is About "Free Markets"
A common pro-globalism meme is the idea that globalization is not really centralization, but
decentralization. This plays primarily to the economic side of global governance, which in my
view is the most important because without economic centralization political centralization is
not possible.
Free markets according to Adam Smith, a pioneer of the philosophy, are supposed to provide
open paths for anyone with superior ideas and ingenuity to pursue those ideas without
interference from government or government aided institutions. What we have today under
globalism are NOT free markets. Instead, globalism has supplied unfettered power to
international corporations which cannot exist without government charter and government
financial aid.
The corporate model is completely counter to Adam Smith's original premise of free market
trade. Large corporations receive unfair legal protection under limited liability as well as
outright legislative protection from civil consequences (Monsanto is a perfect example of
this). They also receive immense taxpayer funded welfare through bailouts and other sources
when they fail to manage their business responsibly. All this while small businesses and
entrepreneurs are impeded at every turn by taxation and legal obstacles.
In terms of international trade being "free trade," this is not really the case either. Only
massive corporations supported by governments are able to exploit the advantages of
international manufacturing and labor sources in a way that ensures long term success.
Meanwhile economic models that promote true decentralization and localism become impractical
because real competition is never allowed. The world has not enjoyed free markets in at least a
century. What we have today is something entirely different.
Con #2: Globalism Is About A "Multipolar World"
This is a relatively new disinformation tactic that I attribute directly to the success of
the liberty movement and alternative economists. As the public becomes more educated on the
dangers of economic centralization and more specifically the dangers of central banks, the
globalists are attempting to shift the narrative to muddy the waters.
For example, the liberty movement has railed against the existence of the Federal Reserve
and fiat dollar hegemony to the point that our information campaign has been breaking into
mainstream thought. The problem is that globalism is not about the dollar, U.S. hegemony or the
so-called "deep state," which in my view is a distraction from the bigger issue at hand.
The fact is, globalist institutions and central banks permeate almost every corner of the
world. Nations like Russia and China are just as heavily tied to the IMF and the Bank for
International Settlements and international financial centers like Goldman Sachs as any western
government.
Part of the plan for the new world order, as has been openly admitted by globalists and
globalist publications, is the decline of the U.S. and the dollar system to make way for one
world financial governance through the IMF as well as the Special Drawing Rights basket as a
mechanism for the world reserve currency. The globalists WANT a less dominant U.S. and a more
involved East, while the East continues to call for more control of the global economy by the
IMF. This concept unfortunately flies over the heads of most economists, even in the liberty
movement.
So, the great lie being promoted now is that the fall of the U.S. and the dollar is a "good
thing" because it will result in "decentralization," a "multi-polar" world order and the
"death" of globalism. However, what is really happening is that as the U.S. falls globalist
edifices like the IMF and the BIS rise. We are moving from centralization to
super-centralization. Globalists have pulled a bait and switch in order to trick the liberty
movement into supporting the success of the East (which is actually also globalist controlled)
and a philosophy which basically amounts to a re-branding of the new world order as some kind
of decentralized paradise.
Con #3: Nationalism Is The Source Of War, And Globalism Will End It
If there's one thing globalists have a love/hate relationship with, it's humanity's natural
tribal instincts. On the one hand, they like tribalism because in some cases tribalism can be
turned into zealotry, and zealots are easy to exploit and manipulate. Wars between nations
(tribes) can be instigated if the tribal instinct is weighted with artificial fears and
threats.
On the other hand, tribalism lends itself to natural decentralization of societies because
tribalism in its best form is the development of many groups organized around a variety of
ideas and principles and projects. This makes the establishment of a "one world ideology" very
difficult, if not impossible. The first inclination of human beings is to discriminate against
ideas and people they see as destructive and counter to their prosperity. Globalists therefore
have to convince a majority of people that the very tribalism that has fueled our social
evolution and some of the greatest ideas in history is actually the source of our eventual
doom.
Nationalism served the globalists to a point, but now they need to get rid of it entirely.
This requires considerable crisis blamed on nationalism and "populist" ideals. Engineered war,
whether kinetic or economic, is the best method to scapegoat tribalism. Every tragedy from now
on must eventually be attributed to ideas of separation and logical discrimination against
negative ideologies. The solution of globalism will then be offered; a one world system in
which all separation is deemed "evil."
Con #4: Globalism Is Natural And Inevitable
As mentioned earlier, globalists cannot have their "new world order" unless they can
convince the masses to ask for it. Trying to implement such a system by force alone would end
in failure, because revolution is the natural end result of tyranny. Therefore, the new world
order has to be introduced as if it had been formed by coincidence or by providence. Any hint
that the public is being conned into accepting global centralization would trigger widespread
resistance.
This is why globalism is always presented in the mainstream media as a natural extension of
civilization's higher achievement. Even though it was the dangerous interdependency of
globalism that helped fuel the economic crisis of 2008 and continues to escalate that crisis to
this day, more globalism is continually promoted as the solution to the problem. It is spoken
of with reverence in mainstream economic publications and political discussions. It receives
almost religious praise in the halls of academia. Globalism is socioeconomic ambrosia -- the
food of deities. It is the fountain of youth. It is a new Eden.
Obviously, this adoration for globalism is nonsense. There is no evidence whatsoever that
globalism is a positive force for humanity, let alone a natural one. There is far more evidence
that globalism is a poisonous ideology that can only ever gain a foothold through trickery and
through false flags.
We live in an era that represents an ultimate crossroads for civilization; a time of great
uncertainty. Will we seek truth in the trials we face, and thus the ability to create our own
solutions? Or, will we take a seemingly easier road by embracing whatever solutions are handed
to us by the establishment? Make no mistake -- the globalists already have a solution
prepackaged for us. They have been acclimating and conditioning the public to accept it for
decades now. That solution will not bring what it promises. It will not bring peace, but
eternal war. It will not bring togetherness, but isolation. It will not bring understanding,
but ignorance.
When globalists eventually try to sell us on a full-blown new world order, they will pull
out every conceivable image of heaven on Earth, but they will do this only after creating a
tangible and ever present hell.
* * *
If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read,
visit our donations page here . We
greatly appreciate your patronage.
Stumbling and Mumbling has a good riff on this topic:
". Economics, for me, is not about armchair theorizing. It should begin with the facts, and
especially the big ones. The facts are that share buy-backs do usually matter, so thought
experiments that say otherwise are wrong from the off. Similarly, the fact that wage
inflation has been low for years (pdf) is much more significant than any theorizing about
Phillips curves."
The comments are good as well:
"That's a category error: you don't define "Economics", tenure committees define it, and they
award tenure to people who have a long record of publishing "internally consistent"
("armchair theorizing") papers."
"I found myself sitting next to a very likable young middle-aged academic tenured at an elite
British university, whom henceforth I will refer to as Doctor X and whose field is closely
associated with this blog. Every year I publish papers in the top journals and they're pure
shit." Doctor X, who by now had had a glass or two, felt bad about this, not least because
"students these days are so idealistic and eager to learn; they're really wonderful."
Furthermore Doctor X could and would like "to write serious papers but what would be the
point?" "
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2018/04/facts-vs-hand-waving-in-economics.html#comments
Yeah. I'm inclined to think the author needs to curb his enthusiasms and take up dejected
drinking.
The nub of his presentation was a model in which consumers, due to cognitive
limitations, were unable to fully examine every single product they purchased. The result
was that regulations guaranteeing a certain standard of safety, quality and the like could
improve competition by giving people more time to shop around instead of having to devote
so much time to investigate specific products. Thus, regulation would improve markets and
competition
This is Nobel-level work? It amounts to finding a way to pitch a product to
anti-regulation dogmatists. I'm sure that you could find similar arguments being made during
the Progressive era regulatory push. Only they would have been framed more as "people will
have more time to shop around if they're not killed by previous ingestion of the
product."
What I mean by 'mathemagics' is the misuse of mathematics –even simple
mathematics -- to create the illusion that 'utility' or 'indifference curves' actually
pertain to real concepts. In reality, they 'mathematize' gobbledygook passed off as coherent
concepts. There is nothing so conceptually barren as 'utility' or 'indifference curve'
analytics. The notion that one can derive any coherent 'demand' analysis for any one consumer
that is individual human being (or life form of any kind) for any product, or that one can
aggregate these up is mathematical junk.
The Classical Economists used the broader political economy rather than today's narrow
economics.
The Washington Consensus dreamed of a world run by the laws of economics.
The laws of economics worked in China's favour and the Western economies got hollowed
out.
Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)
Maximising profit required minimising wages.
The minimum wage is set when disposable income equals zero.
The minimum wage = taxes + the cost of living
China had it made and the West had tilted the playing field against itself.
The US eventually woke up the geopolitical consequences of a world governed by the laws of
economics that had worked in China's favour.
Trump has just made things worse with his tax cuts.
Theory:
If we reduce taxes on the wealthy they will create more jobs and wages.
Reality:
If we reduce taxes on the wealthy they will create more jobs and wages in Asia where they can
make more profit. They can then ship the stuff back here increasing Western trade
deficits.
Nudge was the title of a book by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein on how to manipulate
people in their supposed best interest, like in cafeteria lines, to put whole fruit before
desserts made with sugar.
If you liked Nudge , you'll love " cognitive infiltration ":
Conspiracy Theories
Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03
Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled
epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best
response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas,
such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to
ignore them, are explored in this light.
Keywords: conspiracy theories, social networks, informational cascades, group
polarization https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585
Is not this what discerning MIC's all do these days, via FBI FB?
And of course we mopes have been "nudged" into pretty much that blind serfdom alluded to.
Back in the Cave, with not much chance of dispelling the belief in and subjection to the
shadows projected on the wall we are forced to face
I rather detest the notion of someone or entity 'nudging' me in the direction of some
behavior, especially in a paternalistic mode where the assumption is that they know better
than I what I 'should' be doing or thinking.
On one level, isn't that a working definition of advertising? On another, it smacks of
authoritarianism. Don't we have enough of this kind of thing already? Worse, what's the first
reaction one naturally has when they realize they're being manipulated? Seems to be a
strategy fraught with risk of getting exactly the wrong response.
If I'm to be encouraged to behave in a given way, show me the respect of offering a
conscious, intelligent argument to do so on the merits, or kindly go (family blog)
yourself!
In economics, the single most important thing to understand is debt.
If you understand debt; you won't have any debt.
Debt and freedom are the antithisis of each other.
Without debt; nudges have no influence.
The term scientism generally points to the facile application of science in unwarranted
situations not amenable to application of the scientific method.
Soddy's attempts at linking the physical world via a quasi scientific approach without
doing a thorough heterodox examination of our species wrt monies is my point i.e.
"Being scientist/technologists, Fuller and Soddy felt the need to define wealth, to
quantify it in an equation. They knew the components of wealth were physical resources
– matter and energy – and the level of knowledge available to most effectively
employ these resources. Simplistically stated:
WEALTH = (MATTER + ENERGY) x HUMAN KNOWLEDGE
Energy stored in fossil fuels – Earth's energy savings account – is, of
course, unavailable after the fuels are burned. But both Fuller and Soddy understood that
expanding human knowledge would eventually make it possible for humanity to operate on
Earth's energy income using solar, wind, tidal, biofuels, etc. (but for lack of political
will and resistance from the fossil fuel industry, we have reached this potential today).
Additionally, the First Law of Thermodynamics says the total amount of matter and energy in
the universe is constant and can be neither created nor destroyed, only interchanged. Since
knowledge can only grow, wealth can only grow.
It is critical to understand that wealth is governed by the laws of physics and is
incorruptible, whereas money is governed by the laws of man and is infinitely
corruptible."
I could start with models and applications of theory between interdisciplinary modes of
inquire – chalk and cheese. Was Soddy an accountant, deal with issues like sound
finance vs functional, or have any depth wrt international systems – no. Worse bit in
my book is it moralizes the money question without dealing with the broader social ethos and
how that is forwarded via dominate ideology.
To that quandary I brought up atomistic individualism on this blog some time ago, Syll has
recently mentioned it. Its in these things that proceed baked in human tool user problems
like money.
Thank you skippy and the follow-on commenters for a serious genuine reply-to-and
discussion-of my question.
It has been years since I read " Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt – – The
Solution of the Economic Paradox". In light of this subthread I will have to dig it back out
of my bookpile and read it again . . . and slower next time . . . to see what I end up
thinking.
Why would I even bother to do that? Because it still seems to me that Soddy was at least
trying to understand "economics" in terms of the biophysical world in which we all live and
in which we do everything we do, including trying to understand "economics". He was at least
trying to see how matter-and-energy harvesting in order to do thing-making and stuff-doing
could actually be reality-based understood in terms of the best actual knowledge of
matter-and-energy reality
existing in his day. If that fails to take account of all the cultural/psychomental/etc.
things that humans will do within the picture frame of nature's biophysical constraints, that
is a problem we will have to try taking account of in our own extremely troubled day.
But his scientism was at least an effort to ground "economic" understanding within real
scientific knowledge. His scientism is still better than the cardboard replica scientism
practiced by today's mainstream economists who are merely spray-painting a bunch of scientism
onto the paper-mache' sewage-filled pig which is all that their mainstream discipline of
mainstream economics ever even is.
While it is
undeniable that neoliberals routinely disparage the state, both back then and now, it does not
follow that they are politically libertarian or, as David Harvey would have it, that they are
implacably opposed to state interventions in the economy and society. Harvey's error is
distressing, since even Antonio Gramsci understood this: "Moreover, laissez-faire liberalism,
too, must be introduced by law, through the intervention of political power: it is an act of
will, not the spontaneous, automatic expression of economic facts." 6
From the 1940s onward, the distinguishing characteristic of neoliberal doctrines and practice
is that they embrace this prospect of repurposing the strong state to impose their vision of a
society properly open to the dominance of the market as they conceive it. Neoliberals from
Friedrich Hayek to James Buchanan to Richard Posner to Alexander Rüstow (who invented the
term Vitalpolitik , which became Foucault's "biopolitics") to Jacques Rueff, not to
mention a plethora of figures after 1970, all explicitly proposed policies to strengthen the
state. 7
Friedman's own trademark proposals, like putting the money supply on autopilot, or replacing
public schools with vouchers, required an extremely strong state to enforce them. While
neoliberal think tanks rile up the base with debt clocks and boogeyman statistics of ratios of
government expenditure to GDP, neoliberal politicians organize a host of new state activities
to fortify their markets. They extravagantly increase incarceration and policing of those whom
they deem unfit for the marketplace. They expand both state and corporate power to exercise
surveillance and manipulation of subject populations while dismantling judicial recourse to
resist such encroachments. Neoliberals introduce new property rights (like intellectual
property) to cement into place their extensions of market valuations to situations where they
were absent. They strengthen international sanctions such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and
investor-state dispute settlement schemes to circumvent and neutralize national social
legislation they dislike. They bail out and subsidize private banking systems at the cost of
many multiples of existing national income. And they define corporations as legal persons in
order to facilitate the buying of elections.
The blue-sky writings of neoliberals with regard to the state are, if anything, even more
daunting. In the imaginary constitution proposed in Hayek's Law, Legislation and Liberty
, he suggests that politicians be rendered more powerful : in the imagined upper
legislative house, Hayek stipulates, only men of substantial property over age forty-five would
be eligible to vote or be elected; no political parties would be allowed; and each member would
stand for a hefty fifteen-year term. 8
This illustrates the larger neoliberal predisposition to be very leery of democracy, and thus
to stymie public participation through the concentration of political power in fewer hands.
James Buchanan proposed something very similar. 9
This is just about as far from libertarianism as one could get, short of brute
dictatorship.
So here is the answer to my first question: people think the label "neoliberalism" is an
awful neologism because the neoliberals have been so good at covering their tracks, obscuring
what they stand for, and denying the level of coherence which they have achieved in their long
march to legitimacy. Back when some of these proposals were just a gleam in Hayek's eye, they
did explicitly use the term "neoliberalism" to describe the project that, back then, did not
yet exist -- even Milton Friedman used it in print! 10
But once their program looked like it would start to jell, and subsequently start reshaping
both the state and the market more to their liking, they abruptly abjured any reference to that
label, and sometime in the later 1950s, following the lead of Hayek, they began to call
themselves "classical liberals." This attempt at rebranding was an utter travesty because, as
they moved from reconceptualization of one area of human experience to another, the resulting
doctrines contradicted classical liberalism point by point, and term by term. It might be
worthwhile for us who come after to insist upon the relevance of things that put the
neo- in neoliberalism.
What's New about Neoliberalism?
In a nutshell, classical liberalism imagined a night watchman state that would set the
boundaries for the natural growth of the market, like a shepherd tending his flock. Markets
were born, not made. The principles of good governance and liberty would be dictated by natural
rights of individual humans, or perhaps by the prudent accretion of tradition. People needed to
be nurtured first to find themselves, in order to act as legitimate citizens in liberal
society. Society would be protected from the disruptive character of the market by something
like John Stuart Mill's "harm principle": colloquially, the freedom of my fist stops at the
freedom of your face. The neoliberals were having none of that, and explicitly said so.
Far from trying to preserve society against the unintended consequences of the operations of
markets, as democratic liberalism sought to do, neoliberal doctrine instead set out actively to
dismantle those aspects of society which might resist the purportedly inexorable logic of
"catallactics," and to reshape it in the market's image. For neoliberals, freedom and the
market would be treated as identical. Their rallying cry was to remove the foundation of
liberty from natural rights or tradition, and reposition it upon an entirely novel theory
concerning what a market was, or should be. They could not acknowledge individual natural
rights, because they sought to tutor the masses to become the agent the market would be most
likely to deem successful. The market no longer gave you what you wanted; you had to capitulate
to what the market wanted. All areas of life could be better configured to behave as if they
were more market-like. Gary Becker, for example, a member of the Mont Pèlerin Society,
proposed a market-based approach to allow for a socially optimal level of crime, and advocated
a revolutionary extension of marginal calculus to include the "shadow costs" and benefits
associated with "children, prestige or esteem, health, altruism, envy, and pleasure of the
senses." Becker even proposed an economic model of the "dating market," one consequence of
which was the proposition that polygamy for successful, wealthy men could be politically
rationalized. And voilà! The Sunday New York Times produced an article saying
just that, as if it were real news. Classical liberals like Mill or Michael Oakeshott would be
spinning in their graves. 11
The intellectual content of neoliberalism is something that warrants sustained discussion,
but this can only happen once critical historians can admit they are no longer basing their
evaluations on the isolated writings of a single author. There is no convenient crib sheet
describing what the modern neoliberal thought collective (for brevity, NTC) actually believes.
Nevertheless, neoliberalism does have certain themes that are regularly sounded in emanations
from the NTC:
(1) "Free" markets do not occur naturally. They must be actively constructed through
political organizing.
(2) "The market" is an information processor, and the most efficient one possible -- more
efficient than any government or any single human ever could be. Truth can only be validated by
the market.
(3) Market society is, and therefore should be, the natural and inexorable state of
humankind.
(4) The political goal of neoliberals is not to destroy the state, but to take control of
it, and to redefine its structure and function, in order to create and maintain the
market-friendly culture.
(5) There is no contradiction between public/politics/citizen and
private/market/entrepreneur-consumer -- because the lat ter does and should
eclipse the former.
(6) The most important virtue -- more important than justice, or anything else -- is
freedom, defined "negatively" as "freedom to choose," and most importantly, defined as the
freedom to acquiesce to the imperatives of the market.
(7) Capital has a natural right to flow freely across national boundaries.
(8) Inequality -- of resources, income, wealth, and even political rights -- is a good
thing ; it prompts productivity, because people envy the rich and emulate them; people who
complain about inequality are either sore losers or old fogies, who need to get hip to the way
things work nowadays.
(9) Corporations can do no wrong -- by definition. Competition will take care of all
problems, including any tendency to monopoly.
(10) The market, engineered and promoted by neoliberal experts, can always provide solutions
to problems seemingly caused by the market in the first place: there's always "an app for
that."
(11) There is no difference between is and should be : "free" markets both
should be (normatively) and are (positively) the most efficient economic system,
and the most just way of doing politics, and the most empirically true
description of human behavior, and the most ethical and moral way to live -- which in
turn explains, and justifies, why their versions of "free" markets should be and, as
neoliberals build more and more power, increasingly are universal. 12
No wonder outsiders are dazed and confused. The neoliberal revolutionaries, contemptuous of
tradition, conjured a fake tradition to mask their true intentions. They did this while
explicitly abjuring the label of "conservative." But there is one more reason that outsiders
tend to think it a mistake to posit an effective intellectual formation called "neoliberalism."
Nowadays we doubt that ideas, and particularly political ideas, are the product of the
concerted efforts of some thought collective stretching over generations, engaging in critique
and reconstruction, fine-tuning and elaborating doctrine, while keeping focused upon problems
of implementation and feasibility. Indeed, that doubt is evidence of neoliberal preconceptions
having seeped into all of our thought processes. Yet that is an exact description of how
neoliberalism developed, in the manner (as I insist on calling it) of a thought collective:
sanctioned members are encouraged to innovate and embellish in small ways, but an excess of
doctrinal heresy gets one expelled from participation. Central dogmas are not codified or
dictated by any single prophet; no one delivers the Tablets down from the "Mont"; and you
cannot adequately understand neoliberalism solely by reading Hayek or Milton Friedman, for that
matter. While we can locate its origins in 1947, it has undergone much revision since then, and
is still a hydra-headed Gorgon to this very day.
This "Number one ism" that neoloiberalism promotes is really too unhealthy. There are people who coisouly sacrifies family and other
value for the sake of achivement high status. But infection of this value of large part of the society is destructive.
Viewing people as commodity is defining feature of sociopaths. In a way we can say that neoliberalism promotes socipathy.
Notable quotes:
"... "People get so involved with playing the game of being important that they exhaust themselves and their time, and they don't do the work of actually organizing people." ..."
"... Too many people and too many entities get too comfortable fashioning themselves as leaders and viewing people as commodities... ..."
"People get so involved with playing the game of being important that they exhaust themselves and their time, and they
don't do the work of actually organizing people." -- Ella Baker
[Neoliberalism] also infiltrates our interpersonal relationships...
The ongoing questions
about how major tech corporations -- especially social media giants -- are reaching into our personal and private lives for the purpose
of extraction raises questions about where else these sorts of intrusions take place. Too many people and too many entities get
too comfortable fashioning themselves as leaders and viewing people as commodities...
... ... ...
Fame and fortune dictate far too much in our society. This happens so much that those who are famous regularly instigate public
backlash for making uninformed comments about all sorts of issues. Media outlets invite popular celebrities to comment on a wide
array of serious social issues not because they'll provide any sort of expertise, but because they are famous...
... .. ...
Fame and money do not automatically make a person insincere. The insincerity of this capitalist system, however, is certainly
upheld in part by the extravagance of fame and money. We don't have to be broke and unpopular to be genuine, but if the logic we
use to define our success resembles capitalism, we're going in a terrible circle. What separates us from the system that oppresses
us?
Neoliberal rationality is about redefining everything in economic terms. This is pretty
devious trick. As soon as you allow it you are hooked.
Notable quotes:
"... Republicans argue that their tax cut will increase GDP, reduce the deficit, and reduce taxes for the middle class. Democrats reply that the tax cut will not increase GDP, will not reduce the deficit, and will not reduce the middle-class's tax burden. Both parties are arguing around a shared premise: the goal is to cut taxes for the middle class, reduce the deficit, and grow GDP. ..."
"... What if teaching students history turns out to make them worse workers, because they begin to see a resemblance between their bosses and the robber barons? What if the study of philosophy makes laborers less compliant and docile? If we argue that music is actually economically useful, then we'll have no defense of music if it turns out not to be useful. Instead, we need to argue that whether music is economically useful has nothing to do with whether students deserve to be exposed to it. ..."
"... Here's a clear illustration. Donald Trump heavily pushes the idea that school should be job training, to the point of saying that "community colleges" should be redefined as vocational schools because he doesn't know what "community" is. (You can blame Trump's ignorance, but this is partially because the right has spent decades insisting that "society" and "community" are meaningless terms and the world consists solely of individuals, and the left has not had good explanations in response.) ..."
"... I gave a similar example recently of the difference between the way a neoliberal framework looks at things versus the way a leftist does. Goldman Sachs produced a report suggesting to biotech companies that curing diseases might not actually be profitable, because people stop being customers once they are cured and no more money can be extracted from them. The liberal response to this would be an empirical argument: "Here's why it is actually profitable to cure diseases." The leftist response would be: "We need to have a value system that goes beyond profit maximization." ..."
"... Economic values become the water we swim in, and we don't even notice them worming their way into our brains. ..."
"... The fact that everyone seems to agree that the purpose of education is "job skills," rather than say, "the flourishing of the human mind," shows the triumph of a certain new kind of liberalism, for which I can only think of one word. ..."
...For example:
Republicans argue that their tax
cut will increase GDP, reduce the deficit, and reduce taxes for the middle class. Democrats
reply that the tax cut will not increase GDP, will not reduce the deficit, and will not
reduce the middle-class's tax burden. Both parties are arguing around a shared premise: the
goal is to cut taxes for the middle class, reduce the deficit, and grow GDP.
But traditional liberalism, before the "neo" variety emerged, would have made its case on
the basis of some quite different premises. Instead of arguing that Democrats are actually the
party that will reduce the middle class' taxes, it would make the case that taxes are
important, because it's only through taxes that we can improve schools, infrastructure,
healthcare, and poverty relief. Instead of participating in the race to cut taxes and the
deficit, Old Liberalism is based on a set of moral ideas about what we owe to one
another.
Now, one reason I dislike the "neoliberalism" framework is that I'm not sure how much this
nostalgic conception of the Great Liberalism Of Times Past should be romanticized. But it's
obvious that there's a great deal of difference between New Deal/Great Society rhetoric and
"Actually We're The Real Job Creators/Tax-Cutters/GDP Growers." And it's also true that
over the last decades, certain pro-market ideological premises have wormed their way into the
mind of ordinary liberals to the point that debates occur within a very narrow economic
framework.
Let me give you a very clear example. Libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has a new book out
called The Case Against
Education . It argues that the public school system is a waste of time and money and
should be destroyed. Caplan says that students are right to wonder "when they will ever use"
the things they are being taught. They won't, he says, because they're not being taught any
skills they will actually need in the job market. Instead, education functions mostly as
"signaling": a degree shows an employer that you are the type of person who works hard and is
responsible, not that you have actually learned particular things that you need. Credentials,
Caplan says, are mostly meaningless. He argues that we should drastically cut public school
funding, make education more like job training, get rid of history, music, and the arts, and
"deregulate and destigmatize child labor." Essentially, Caplan believes that education should
be little more than skills training for jobs, and it's failing at that.
Now here's where "neoliberalism" comes in. Caplan's argument is obviously based on
right-wing economic premises: markets should sort everything out, the highest good is to create
value for your employers, etc. But let's look at a "liberal" response. In The Washington
Monthly , Kevin Carey has a biting critique of
Caplan's book, which he says is based on a "childish" philosophy. Carey says that education
is , in fact useful for more than signaling:
Caplan is not wrong about the existence of signaling and its kissing cousin,
credentialism, which describes the tendency of job categories to accrue more degree
requirements, sometimes unnecessarily, over time. But these are banal and unchallenged ideas in
the economics profession. In his 2001 Nobel lecture, [Michael] Spence warned that people who
use job markets to illustrate signaling run the risk of concluding, wrongly, that education
doesn't contribute to productivity. This wrongheaded argument is the essence of The Case
Against Education Eric Hanushek, a conservative economist and well-known skeptic of public
school funding, has documented a strong relationship between average scores on international
tests and the growth rates of national economies. Put simply, well-educated nations become
prosperous nations, and no country has become well educated without large, sustained
investments in public education.
Carey mounts a strong defense of public education against Caplan's attack. But look at how
he does it. Caplan has argued that education doesn't actually make students more productive or
give them skills useful for thriving in the economy. Carey replies that while this is partly
true, education does actually increase productivity, as we can see when we look across
nations. Everyone in the discussion, however, is operating on the implicit premise that the
measure of whether education is successful is "productivity." And because of that, no matter
how strong the liberal argument is, no matter how stingingly critical it may be of
libertarianism or privatization, it has already ceded the main point. We all agree that
education is about maximizing students' value to the economy, we just disagree about the degree
to which public education successfully does that, and whether the solution is to fix the system
or get rid of it. The debate becomes one of empirics rather than values.
Carey doesn't make a case for an alternative "liberal" notion of education, and doesn't
question the values underlying the "banal and unchallenged ideas in the economics profession."
But unless liberalism is to be something more than "a difference of opinion over the correct
way to maximize productivity," it's important to defend a wholly different set of
principles . Otherwise, what if it turns out that providing art and music classes is a drag
on productivity? What if teaching students history turns out to make them worse workers,
because they begin to see a resemblance between their bosses and the robber barons? What if the
study of philosophy makes laborers less compliant and docile? If we argue that music is
actually economically useful, then we'll have no defense of music if it turns out not to be
useful. Instead, we need to argue that whether music is economically useful has nothing to do
with whether students deserve to be exposed to it.
Here's a clear illustration. Donald Trump heavily pushes the idea that school should be
job training,
to the point of saying that "community colleges" should be redefined as vocational schools
because he doesn't know what "community" is. (You can blame Trump's ignorance, but this is
partially because the right has spent decades insisting that "society" and "community" are
meaningless terms and the world consists solely of individuals, and the left has not had good
explanations in response.) A UCLA education professor, Mike Rose,
critiques Trump and Betsy DeVos for defining vocational education "in functional and
economistic terms -- as preparation for the world of work[,] reduced to narrow job training."
Sounds right! But then here's what Rose says about why vocational education must be more than
training:
Intellectual suppleness will have to be as key an element of a future Career and Technical
Education as the content knowledge of a field. The best CTE already helps students develop an
inquiring, problem-solving cast of mind. But to make developing such a cast of mind standard
practice will require, I think, a continual refining of CTE and an excavation of the beliefs
about work and intelligence that led to the separation of the academic and the vocational
course of study in the first place. [In addition to basic skills], students will need to
learn the conceptual base of those tools and techniques and how to reason with them, for
future work is predicted to be increasingly fluid and mutable. A standard production process
or routine of service could change dramatically. Would employees be able to understand the
principles involved in the process or routine and adapt past skills to the new workplace? To
borrow a phrase from labor journalist William Serrin, we need "to give workers back their
heads" and assume and encourage the intellectual engagement of students in the world of work.
That engagement would include education in history and sociology, economics and political
science. What are the forces shaping the economy? How did we get to this place, and are there
lessons to be learned from exploring that history? Are there any pressure points for
individual or collective action? What resources are out there, what options do I have, how do
I determine their benefits and liabilities?
Rose argues that workers should be given an education in history and sociology. Why? Because
it will make them better workers. The future economy will require more adaptable minds
with better critical reasoning skills, and wider courses of study will help prepare students
for that future economy. Yet the argument is still: Education shouldn't just be job
training, it should also incorporate the liberal arts, because the liberal arts are also
helpful on the job. Our defense of a liberal education remains instrumental. Of course,
often when liberals make these arguments, they defend them by saying that instrumental
arguments are more successful than moral ones. You're not going to get anywhere arguing that
workers deserve history courses, you have to say that they need them. But I've always
been skeptical of that defense for a few reasons. First, if it turns out that learning history
won't actually produce better tech workers, your whole argument collapses. Second, it's
dishonest, and people can usually detect dishonesty. Third, it takes us yet another step
further toward the universal acceptance of the conclusion that economic values are the only
values there are. (Also, let's be real: no business is going to be fooled into thinking it's a
good idea to teach their workers how to use "collective action" to exert pressure.)
I gave a similar
example recently of the difference between the way a neoliberal framework looks at things
versus the way a leftist does. Goldman Sachs produced a report suggesting to biotech companies
that curing diseases might not actually be profitable, because people stop being customers once
they are cured and no more money can be extracted from them. The liberal response to this would
be an empirical argument: "Here's why it is actually profitable to cure diseases." The
leftist response would be: "We need to have a value system that goes beyond profit
maximization."
Neoliberalism, then, is the best existing term we have to capture the almost universal
convergence around a particular set of values. We don't have debates over whether the point of
teaching is to enrich the student's mind or prepare the student for employment, we have debates
over how to prepare students for employment. Economic values become the water we swim in,
and we don't even notice them worming their way into our brains.
he word is valuable insofar as it draws our attention to the ideological frameworks within
which debates occur, and where the outer boundaries of those debates lie. The fact that
everyone seems to agree that the purpose of education is "job skills," rather than say, "the
flourishing of the human mind," shows the triumph of a certain new kind of liberalism, for
which I can only think of one word.
We will have a more thorough examination of The Case Against Education, along with an
explanation of an alternate left conception of the purpose of schooling, in our May-June
edition. Subscribe now to
make sure you receive it when it comes out!
In a way neoliberalism is Fordism applied to humans.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism is not just an economic policy, it is a project of "full spectrum dominance" of the human psyche. It is an indoctrination that tells people to be more efficient, to schedule and micromanage their lives as to increase productivity. One must become a widget whose sole function is to make money and whose value as a person is determined by their economic status ..."
"... Neoliberalism "refers to the policies and processes whereby a relative handful of private interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to maximize their personal profit." The major beneficiaries of neoliberalism are large trans-national corporations and wealthy investors. The implementation of neoliberal policies came into full force during the eighties under Thatcher and Reagan. Today, the principles of neoliberalism are widely held with near-religious fervor by most major political parties in the US and Britain and are gaining acceptance by those holding power elsewhere. ..."
Neoliberalism is not just an economic policy, it is a project of "full spectrum
dominance" of the human psyche. It is an indoctrination that tells people to be more
efficient, to schedule and micromanage their lives as to increase productivity. One must
become a widget whose sole function is to make money and whose value as a person is
determined by their economic status .
Even a lot of so called liberal Democrats share these capitalist extremist beliefs because
they are actively trying to integrate the "talented tenth" of minority communities into the
ruling class.
@ 62
The IMF and The World Bank (always headed by an American) -- bastions of neoliberalism.
Robert McChesney:
Neoliberalism "refers to the policies and processes whereby a relative handful of
private interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to
maximize their personal profit." The major beneficiaries of neoliberalism are large
trans-national corporations and wealthy investors. The implementation of neoliberal
policies came into full force during the eighties under Thatcher and Reagan. Today, the
principles of neoliberalism are widely held with near-religious fervor by most major
political parties in the US and Britain and are gaining acceptance by those holding power
elsewhere.
The article does provide more context but even then competition from robots is not
defensible. The article does end by asking for a discussion about inequality which would sure
be a start......and likely a quick ending....grin
"... While market competitiveness is idealized as the engine to advancement for all, labor competition is circumscribed for particular groups (e.g., through a household registration system that prevent migrants from accessing certain jobs, rights, and benefits in China) and in specific ways (e.g., only certain sectors of the labor market are considered legitimate -- not sex work or surrogacy, for example). The discourse of national competitiveness and collective welfare pushes forward a conservative moral agenda in the face of these changes. ..."
The Scholar & Feminist Online is a webjournal published three times a year by the
Barnard Center for Research on Women I begin this article by reflecting on one of the biggest
professional mistakes I have ever made. I became a part of corporate humanitarianism in 2006,
when IOM Korea invited me to be part of a research project on trafficking of Korean women
overseas, sponsored by the Bom-bit Foundation, an NGO set up by the wife of the CEO of the
biggest insurance company in South Korea. She had been concerned about the barrage of news
reports that were circulating both in and out of Korea about the trafficking of Korean women
into forced prostitution overseas. She wanted a global research project, "Korean women victims
of sex trafficking in five global sites": South Korea, Japan, Australia, and the East and West
Coasts of the United States. The ultimate goal was to find solutions to end such outflow and to
save these women. The principal researcher, a male Korean academic, drafted a survey
questionnaire laden with assumptions about coercion, violence, and sexual abuse. Even though
the final reports from different sites came back with little evidence of trafficking, they did
not prevent the principal investigator from producing a final report about the "serious problem
of sex trafficking of Korean women into the global sex trade."
The first woman who I interviewed for this project was working in a massage parlor in
Queens, New York. She came to the United States after the Korean police cracked down on her in
her home, after they had obtained her address from her employer in Seoul in an antiprostitution
raid. She explained her work in the United States:
Jin: Some people only come in for table showers, massage, and chats. Interviewer: Are they the good clients? Jin: No, they are not. Interviewer: So who are the good clients? Jin: Those people who finish quickly, they are the good ones. Those who have shower
and then have sex and go. They are the best.
This response exploded the entire premise of the research and its assumptions about the
inherently victimizing nature of sexual labor for women. Those who demand sex rather than
conversations are the good clients -- if they finish quickly, get themselves cleaned before
having sex, and leave immediately after sex. Jin situated sex squarely within a repertoire of
labor performance, along with other physical and emotional work, and identified sex as more
efficient ("quick") in providing return to her labor. She made between $11,000 and $22,000 per
month. On that note, let me move on to some important points in the discussion about gender and
neoliberalism within the context of South Korea.
Neoliberalism is useful as a term only to the extent of understanding macro-historical
shifts and setting a framework for investigation. But its history, manifestation, and effects
can be so diverse in each location that it cannot be a useful analytical category without
empirical analysis. For example, contrary to the trend of de-democratization [
1 ] observed in the United States, in South Korea, neoliberal reforms coincided with
the democratization of civil society and the state in late 1990s, following four decades of
military and authoritarian rule. In 1997, just when the first civilian democratic leader Kim
Dae-jung became president, South Korea went through a major financial crisis and received the
largest IMF bailout. The president supported a new wave of civic/human-rights organizations,
set up the first National Human Rights Commission, and founded the Ministry of Gender Equality.
During the same period, structural readjustment also ensured the flexibilization of labor and
the weakening of trade unions, rendering many lives of more precarious as they became
underemployed or unemployed.
In my work, I am grappling with how individuals like Jin live and make sense of their lives
within a number of paradoxes/contradictions in neoliberalism:
1) The apparent amorality of neoliberalism and its facilitation of conservative moral
agenda. The deployment of market principles to reconfigure the relationship between
sovereignty and citizenship not only remakes economic, political, and cultural life, but also
remakes citizen-subjects as entrepreneurs and consumers. While market competitiveness is
idealized as the engine to advancement for all, labor competition is circumscribed for
particular groups (e.g., through a household registration system that prevent migrants from
accessing certain jobs, rights, and benefits in China) and in specific ways (e.g., only certain
sectors of the labor market are considered legitimate -- not sex work or surrogacy, for
example). The discourse of national competitiveness and collective welfare pushes forward a
conservative moral agenda in the face of these changes.
2) The depoliticization of social risks and the hyperpoliticization of national
security. The emergence of an ethics of self-management and risk-taking justifies some form
of retrenchment of the state in the social sphere. Yet this by no means suggests a weakening of
the state. What we witness in neoliberal transformations is the assertion of the state through
more hard-lined enforcement of criminal justice and border control. The consequence is an
uneven emphasis on and legitimation of the self-enterprising individual, invoking national
crisis, social danger, and self-harm to justify state intervention or exclusion. These measures
have significant gendered repercussions -- reshaping discourses on domesticity, sexuality, and
mobility.
3) The concomitant and continuous ravaging of vulnerable populations and celebration of
humanitarianism/human rights responses from state and civil society. Neoliberal
developments create vulnerable populations by polarizing resources and wealth, and
concomitantly generate a set of humanitarian/human rights responses from the state and civil
society. Rather than being a set of problems that are being held back or eliminated by a set of
solutions, they seem to grow symbiotically together. In effect, many humanitarian/human-rights
interventions turn out to reiterate dominant interests, reproducing conservative gender,
racial, class, and national hierarchies and divides.
How are these contradictions lived? Maybe Jin has some answers for us -- not just from her
personal trajectory, but also in what she said:
I am working hard and making money for myself. I am saving money to start my own business
back home/to further study. I am not dependent on the government or my family. I am not
harming anyone, even though this is not a job to boast about. I don't understand these
women's human rights. These activists don't understand us. They are people from good
background. I am not saying the antiprostitution laws are wrong. But do they have to go so
far?
My research since 1997 on sex work and migrant women in South Korea and the United States is
located right at the intersection of these paradoxes. As women who strategize their immigration
and labor strategies for self-advancement as sex workers, they embody the sexual limits of
neoliberalism. While they may personify the values of self-reliance, self-governance, and free
markets in a manner akin to homo economicus, they violate the neoliberal ideals of relational
sexuality and middle-class femininity. [
2 ] As many critics have attested to, even though the antitrafficking movement hails
women's human rights, gender justice, and state protection, its operation predominantly through
the crime frame reinforces gender, class, and racial inequalities. As such, antitrafficking
initiatives, as they have taken shape in the twenty-first century, are part of neoliberal
governance, and underlying the claims of equality and liberty are racial, gender, and sex
panics with nationalist overtones that justify the repression of those who step outside these
limits.
I think antitrafficking initiatives need to be situated within a broader set of political
and social transformations in order to analyze the undercurrents of gender and sexuality across
different sites. In South Korea, there was a strong gender and sexual ideology pervading the
expansion of social policies in the post-1997 era. While the government could claim credit for
addressing the needs of certain vulnerable populations (the unemployed, the homeless, migrant
wives, women leaving prostitution, etc.), public anxieties about the breakdown of the family
(runaway teenagers, old-age divorce, the fight for women's equality) that started during the
1997 crisis have continued into the new millennium (same-sex families, "multicultural
families," single women). As national boundaries seem to have weakened with the incorporation
of "multicultural families," the heteronormative nuclear family became more reified, and the
domestic sphere as the proper place for women was reinscribed in a range of social policies.
These include protection for "prostituted women," since 2004, and support provided to migrant
wives -- both policies designed to harness these women's reproductive powers for the future of
the Korean nation, and to reproduce their class location.
It is also important to be wary of claims to promote "women's human rights" and how these
claims are circumscribed within certain spheres -- only in sex work, and not in the gendered
layoffs during an economic crisis, or in relation to the homeless women who have been excluded
as legitimate recipients of government support. "Women's human rights" have been hurled around
to legitimize activism and policies that turned out to make lives more difficult for some
women, rendering them either as targets or instruments of criminal law.
We also need to ask why the law is resorted to so consistently for women activists to make
claims on the state. And why does the general public have so much faith in the law to enforce
morality?
I would like to see cultural struggles become a more important site to extend into, building
on a solid economic and political critique. As we witnessed i the Occupy movement, as well as
with the sex worker festivals in different global locations, creativity, humor, and
conviviality have a lot of power to draw attention, if not to incite solidarity. The new sex
workers' organization in South Korea calls itself the Giant Girls ("GG" also means "support" in
Korean), and organizes its own seminars, holds a sex work festival celebration, and produces
its own podcasts, in which everyday conversation and serious discussion take place in a
light-hearted manner, often with bursts of laughter. The fists-in-air protests are no longer
the main part of the movement, marking a significant departure from the victimhood discourse. I
am hopeful that this will appeal at least to a younger generation of potential coalition
partners in the LGBT community, labor movements (for women and migrants), and cultural
movements. This could be a refreshing -- and possibly transformational -- shift in feminist
politics and critique in South Korea, and in other sites in Asia.
Footnotes
Brown, Wendy (2006). "American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and
De-Democratization." Political Theory 34(6): 690-714. [
Return to text ]
Bernstein, Elizabeth (2012). "Carceral Politics as Gender Justice? The 'Traffic in
Women' and Neoliberal Circuits of Crime, Sex, and Rights." Theory and Society
41(3):233–59. [
Return to text ]
It is difficult to ignore the cross-cultural parallels prompted by the growth of
neoliberalism, an economic and moral philosophy in which sociologist Zygmunt Bauman notes, "the
responsibilities for resolving the quandaries generated by vexingly volatile and constantly
changing circumstances is shifted onto the shoulders of individuals -- who are now expected to
be 'free choosers' and to bear in full the consequences of their choices" (Bauman
2007:3–4). Bauman essentially argues that neoliberalism's deceptively seductive offer of
increased individual choice comes at a heavy price, rendering individuals more and more
vulnerable.
Neoliberal economic policies have increasingly impacted individual lives throughout
the world through the unprecedented untethering of workers and the workplace so that those in
positions of power and privilege have less direct contact with or responsibility for those who
work at the lowest levels of the same industry. Such new labor practices are a constant
reminder to workers that they are expendable, easily replaced, and thus not in a position to
negotiate the terms and conditions under which their labor is carried out.
Such vulnerability is even more pronounced for those who already inhabit the margins of
social life because of their poverty or other forms of social exclusion. This is particularly
true for situations wherein particular types of state-endorsed socioeconomic inequalities
create a larger pool of feminized labor that is typically lower paid, less respected, and less
able to u
"... So, in a different way, were old American political operators, at least when it came to domestic politics, as they had to manage multitudes of groups who had diverse worldviews who didn't take kindly to moral lecturing by politicians. ..."
"... Nowadays, though, this seems a worldview that many in "western" societies are running low on. Too many people start their argument by asserting their beliefs, why they believe them, and, implicitly, even if not made explicit, why they are right and others should be "persuaded" to believe them (since the "others" are "obviously" irrational.) ..."
"... Condemning the other, who are "obviously wrong," I suppose, makes people feel better, all the more so if one's own worldview can be justified by the Scripture or "science." ..."
"... An important point, however, is that for action to be 'rational' in this sense, it has, in some manner, to be appropriately calculated to the purposes envisaged. A difficulty lies precisely in the ambiguity about purposes which is implicit in this whole tradition. ..."
I agree entirely with your view. In order to make sense of the "purpose" behind actions
taken by various political actors, it is necessary to take seriously their worldview and
value system. It is not necessary that one should "respect" them or believe them for oneself,
but recognize that these do actuate the choices that they do make.
I suppose this might sound
like a sort of backhanded compliment, but this is something that the old British were really
good at -- and lay behind successful management of the empire.
So, in a different way, were old
American political operators, at least when it came to domestic politics, as they had to
manage multitudes of groups who had diverse worldviews who didn't take kindly to moral
lecturing by politicians.
Nowadays, though, this seems a worldview that many in "western" societies are running low
on. Too many people start their argument by asserting their beliefs, why they believe them,
and, implicitly, even if not made explicit, why they are right and others should be
"persuaded" to believe them (since the "others" are "obviously" irrational.)
Condemning the
other, who are "obviously wrong," I suppose, makes people feel better, all the more so if
one's own worldview can be justified by the Scripture or "science." (not the science based on
logical deduction and empiricism, but something that is vaguely "right" because it "just
is.") But that certainly rules out actually dealing with the other side responsibly to
accomplish something.
I still feel that the brand of "rationality" that too many people in the West subscribe to
is a brand of smug pseudoreligious fanaticism that is itself "irrational." It may be itself
"rational," given the context, as much as beliefs in witchcraft might be, but it is not what
its believers think it is. When such beliefs clash with other, comparable beliefs, nothing
good can come out of such encounters.
'One great irony is that, at least among "serious"
academics in economics and other social sciences, the only definition of "rational" that is
accepted is that there is some purpose behind it.'
This takes me into areas where I get out of my depth.
But the link of 'rationality' to purposive action is certainly very much in keeping with
the tradition which goes, through Collingwood, into areas of British anthropology (exmples
chosen from limited knowledge, Evans-Pritchard, Wendy James, Paul Dresch.)
An important point, however, is that for action to be 'rational' in this sense, it has, in
some manner, to be appropriately calculated to the purposes envisaged. A difficulty lies precisely in the ambiguity about purposes which is implicit in this
whole tradition.
So if one of one's basic conception of human purposes is to keep a kind of social order
'on the road', then beliefs which may be 'irrational', in the sense of indefensible in terms
of canons of Western science which are, patently 'rational', may have a 'rationality' of
their own.
An example is the analysis by Evans-Pritchard of the witchcraft beliefs of the Azande.
Implicit in this is a nightmare possibility which is lurking in a manner which is often
hysterical, but not necessarily 'irrational' manner, in a tradition of conservative thought:
that what is 'rational' in terms of scientific enquiry may be subversive of what is
'rational' in terms of the need to maintain functioning societies.
One great irony is that, at least among "serious"
academics in economics and other social sciences, the only definition of "rational" that is
accepted is that there is some [market-related] purpose behind it.
Most people who rant about
what "social science" says about the universe and how it should be are sophomoric thinkers
who don't know what the "science" part of social science is. The tragedy is that they are
what the rest of society expects social science to be about, to rant about morality of this
or that mode of politics, and not engage in hard headed analysis based on logic and evidence.
"... Bin Salman's affair with academia isn't a fluke – it's a result of the neoliberal logic by which universities increasingly operate. As the journalist David Dickson noted in 1984, American universities and corporations have "teamed up to challenge the democratic control of knowledge" by delegating control over academic research to "the marketplace". ..."
Bin Salman's affair with academia isn't a fluke – it's a result of the neoliberal logic by which universities increasingly operate.
As the journalist David Dickson noted in 1984, American universities and corporations have "teamed up to challenge the democratic
control of knowledge" by delegating control over academic research to "the marketplace".
This market rationality extends even to the way research is evaluated – which the Saudi government has been gaming. To give one
example, it paid highly cited mathematicians at universities around the world to list
King Abdulaziz University as an affiliation,
thereby making it the seventh "best" mathematics department worldwide in the
2014 US
News and World Report university rankings .
Here, the Saudi government is only playing by the rules of a game designed by western elites. This is the same logic that has
been used to allow corporations, nonprofits and the military to steadily buy out chunks of academia to the point where it makes little
sense to presume clear boundaries exist between these entities. As a result, numerous partnerships entangle MIT researchers with
Bin Salman. On his Boston tour, he also visited IBM's Cambridge research facility, which recently partnered with MIT to form an artificial
intelligence research laboratory in exchange for a $240m commitment to the university.
Boston Dynamics , an MIT partner that builds robots for the US military, also offered a demonstration. Such alliances ought to
cast doubt on MIT's promise to understand the "societal and ethical" implications of AI and build socially beneficial technologies.
The terms of all of these partnerships are essentially opaque, while the secrecy that surrounds them denies the community the
chance to deliberate and take action. The growth of unaccountable university partnerships, like other crises facing educational institutions,
stems from the absence of democratic engagement. When universities decide to sell themselves to the highest bidder, they become deaf
to the interests of their students and the wider societies in which they operate. Subservience to war criminals and corporate overlords
tends to follow.
Against
the overall political pall cast by the Trump administration, there are hopeful signs. Despite
the problems I have with the DSA's failure to make a clean break with the Democratic Party, my
spirits remain lifted by their rapid growth. I also take heart in the ability of filmmakers to
produce outstanding critiques of our social system in defiance of the commercial diktats of
Hollywood. Finally, there is a bounty of radical historiography that through the examination of
our past sheds light on our present malaise.
The New Historians of Capitalism (NHC) are just one indication of this trend. Within this
school, Walter Johnson, Edward Baptist and Sven Beckert have all written about slavery and
capitalism from the perspective of how the "peculiar institution" has shaped American society
to this day. Despite their focus on the 19 th century, all are sure to "only
connect" as E.M. Forster once put it. In an article for the Boston Review titled " To Remake the
World: Slavery, Racial Capitalism, and Justice ", Walter Johnson put it this way:
The Movement for Black Lives proposal, "A Vision for Black Lives," insists on a
relationship between the history of slavery and contemporary struggles for social justice. At
the heart of the proposal is a call for "reparations for the historic and continuing harms of
colonialism and slavery." Indeed, the ambient as well as the activist discussion of justice
in the United States today is inseparable from the history of slavery.
While not a school in the same exact way as the NHC, the historians grouped around the
Labor and Working Class History
Association (LAWCHA) website have set themselves to the task of promoting "public and
scholarly awareness of labor and working-class history through research, writing, and
organizing." Among its members is Chad Pearson, whose "
Reform or Repression: Organizing America's Anti-Union Movement " helps us understand the
threat posed by Janus today even if the period covered in the book is over a century ago.
Pearson's LAWCHA colleague Mark A. Lause, a civil war era historian just like the NHC'ers,
has just come out with a new book titled " The Great Cowboy Strike:
Bullets, Ballots, & Class Conflicts in the American West " that should be of keen
interest to CounterPunch readers. Since American society is guided by notions of "rugged
individualism" embodied in the old West, it is high time for that mythology to be put to rest.
Reading Lause's magisterial account will leave you with only one conclusion: Billy the Kid had
more in common with Occupy Wall Street than he did with faux cowboys like Ronald Reagan
chopping wood and George W. Bush clearing bush in their respective ranches. In fact, he was
more likely to put a bullet in their counterparts way back then.
Pat Garrett, the lawman who killed Billy the Kid and who was characterized as a hero in most
Hollywood movies, mostly functioned as a hired gun for the big cattle ranchers who considered
small-time rustlers like Billy as the class enemy.
Like Billy, most cowboys were super-exploited. In many ways, working for a rancher was not
much different than doing stoop labor for a big farmer. Riding 12 to 16 hours a day in the
saddle at low pay -- often in the Texas panhandle's bitter cold–was not what you'd see in
most cowboy movies, especially those made by John Ford who romanticized their life.
In the 1880s, there was a series of cowboy strikes that were never dramatized by John Ford,
Howard Hawks, William Wellman or any other Hollywood director. In 1883, a virtual General
Strike swept across the Texas panhandle that one newspaper described as the natural outcome of
cowboys having some knowledge of the "immense profits" some bosses were making. Wasn't it to be
expected that they would "ask for fair wages for what was the hardest of hard work"?
As he does throughout his book, Lause digs deep into the historical archives and discovers
that one of the leaders was a forty-year-old Pueblo Indian from the Taos Agency named Juan
Antonio Gomez. The cowboys had no union but according to the Commissioner of Labor, they were
well organized and prepared for the strike by building a strike fund in advance. As we have seen recently from the West Virginia
teachers strike, there is no substitute for militancy and organization. Strike headquarters was
in Jesse Jenkins's saloon in Tascosa. Jenkins was sympathetic to the Greenback movement in
Texas that eventually led to the formation of a party committed to a farmer-labor alliance that
challenged the two-party system. As has generally been the case with militant labor struggles,
the bourgeois press regarded the cowboys in much the same way that the West Virginia press
viewed the teachers. The Las Vegas Gazette harrumphed that the strikers were "using unlawful
means to compel their employers to grant their request" and added that the strikes "always
result in evil and no good".
Unlike most recent strikes, the cowboys were not easy to push around. One newspaper reported
that the bosses "imported a lot of men from the east, but the cowboys surrounded the newcomers
and will not allow them to work". Of course, it also helped that, according to the Fort Collins
Courier, the strikers were "armed with Winchester rifles and six-shooters and the lives of all
who attempt to work for less than the amount demanded, are in great danger".
Another strike wave took place between 1884 and 1886. This time the cattle bosses were
better prepared. They brought in Pat Garrett to head up the strike-breaking machinery. He was
implicitly also the agent of the "Redeemer" Democrats, those politicians that supported
terrorism to break the back of Reconstruction. He led a raid on the house of strike leader Tom
Harris that led to the arrest of two strike leaders but not Harris. He and another cowboy
striker came to the jailhouse later that night and broke them out.
Get the idea? This is material for a "revisionist" movie that could shake Hollywood and the
mainstream film critics to their foundations. In fact, one was once made along these lines --
the vastly underrated 1978 "Heaven's Gate" by Michael Cimino that was widely viewed as Marxist
propaganda. The N.Y. Times's Vincent Canby was beside himself:
The point of "Heaven's Gate" is that the rich will murder for the earth they don't
inherit, but since this is not enough to carry three hours and 45 minutes of screentime,
"Heaven's Gate" keeps wandering off to look at scenery, to imitate bad art (my favorite shot
in the film is Miss Huppert reenacting "September Morn") or to give us footnotes (not of the
first freshness) to history, as when we are shown an early baseball game. There's so much
mandolin music in the movie you might suspect that there's a musical gondolier anchored just
off-screen, which, as it turns out, is not far from the truth.
"Heaven's Gate" is something quite rare in movies these days – an unqualified
disaster.
A passage on the Johnson County War, upon which "Heaven's Gate" was based (as well as
"Shane"), can be found in chapter 8 of "The Great Cowboy Strike". This was essentially an armed
struggle between wealthy ranchers and those trying to scratch out a living in Wyoming between
1889 to 1893 that Lause aptly describes as illustrating "the connections between cowboy
discontent, range wars, and political insurgency."
This go-round the bosses' enforcer was Sheriff Frank Canton (played by Sam Waterston in
"Heaven's Gate"), another cold-blooded killer like Pat Garrett. Anybody who defied the big
ranchers was immediately dubbed a "rustler" and met the same fate as a cowboy named Jim Averill
and his companion Ellen Watson who dared to defend their homestead against Johnson County's
elite. Canton led his thugs into a raid on their cabin and strung them up on a short rope, as
Lause put it.
For the final assault on the cowboys and the small homesteaders, a small army of men from
Texas was recruited. An attack party was launched on April 5 th , 1890 against Nate
Champion's Kaycee Ranch (played by Christopher Walken in "Heaven's Gate"). Surrounded by a much
larger force, Champion was fearless. Lause writes, "To the unwanted admiration of those closing
in on the cabin, the door flew open and Champion stormed out, a Winchester rifle in his left
hand and a large pistol in the other. Even those who riddled him with bullets expressed their
admiration for a man who had died 'game'".
If you want to mix solid class-oriented history with stirring tales of cowboy rebels, check
out "The Great Cowboy Strike: Bullets, Ballots, & Class Conflicts in the American West". It
is a reminder that once upon a time in America the Red States were really Red.
Facebook's problems are just getting worse, and now investors can add worker morale to the (bucket)
list of problems as the
New York Times
reports that employees furious over a
leaked 2016 memo
from a top executive seeking to justify the company's relentless growth and
"questionable" data harvesting - even if it led to terrorists attacks organized on the platform.
VP Andrew "Boz" Bosworth - one of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's most trusted executives, wrote that
connecting people is the greater good even if it "
costs someone a life
by exposing
someone to bullies.
"Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools."
On Friday, the fallout from Bosworth's leaked memo - following several weeks of outrage over the
company's data harvesting practices,
has Facebook employees in an uproar
, according to
The
Times
.
According to two Facebook employees,
workers have been calling on internal message boards
for a hunt to find those who leak to the media
. Some have questioned whether Facebook has
been transparent enough with its users and with journalists, said the employees, who asked not to be
identified for fear of retaliation.
Many are also concerned over what might leak next and are
deleting old comments or messages that might come across as controversial or newsworthy
, they
said. -
NYT
One former Facebook employee, Alex Muffett, wrote on Twitter that Bosworth's memo was a "significant"
part of his decision to leave the company.
"Between overwork and leadership direction evidenced thusly, I could never stay,"
wrote Muffett.
"There are some amazing engineers working at Facebook, folks who care deeply about user privacy,
security, and how people will use the code that they write," Mr. Muffett said later in a message. "Alas
this episode may not help" to achieve more transparent internal product discussion, he said.
Buzzfeed article suppressed?
Following Buzzfeed's Thursday's publication of the "growth at any cost" leak, BuzzFeed reporter Ryan
Mac suggested Facebook was censoring the article - tweeting "Interesting that only about 14k views (about
2% of total) for our story have come through Facebook referrals. Facebook's users should be aware of
this, so feel free to share it on Facebook."
When
Vox
's Matthew Yglesias chimed in to corroborate Mac's observation, Facebook head of news
feed Adam Mosseri chimed in to say that the social media giant "
100% do not take any action on
stories for being critical of us.
"
Mark Zuckerberg responded to Bosworth's letter in a statement essentially disavowing the Boz, while
also noting that Facebook
changed their entire corporate focus
to connect people
and
"bring
them together"...
Boz is a talented leader who says many provocative things. This was one that most people at
Facebook including myself disagreed with strongly.
We've never believed the ends justify the
means
.
We recognize that connecting people isn't enough by itself. We also need to work to bring people
closer together.
We changed our whole mission and company focus to reflect this last year
.
Meanwhile, Facebook is rapidly becoming radioactive, inside and out.
The question is when will investors - and especially hedge funds, for whom FB was the second most
popular stock as of Dec. 31 - agree, and do what Mark Zuckerberg has
been aggressively doing in recent weeks
: dump it.
This is not a coordinated and concerted effort by Facebook execs to 'grow' the
company at any and all costs because stock options must be vested 'in the
money' and obscene amounts of 'compensation' are their god given right.
Nope, this is the work of a lone wolf exec VP who was drunk on power and out
of control.
<Well, it works for the CIA to explain away their latest domestic
terrorism operation or Presidential assassination attempt.>
Today Mark Zuckerberg announced the official name change of
FaceBook to GoëbbelsBook.
"Today marks the official change of our corporate name from
FaceBook to GoëbbelsBook in honor of the German NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische
Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) Reich Minister of Propaganda
(1933-1945) Dr. Joseph Goëbbels (29 October 1897 – 1 May 1945).
Dr. Goëbbels revolutionary and visionary dream was that of the
total surveillance state. We have successfully implemented his
concept of the total surveillance state."
"When a client downloads the GoëbbelsBook application it
vacuums up everything from their computer and mobile devices.
It gobbles up everything they write, all their contacts, their
"likes"; in short every action they perform. The application
also digitizes all telephone conversations for upload. The
application then uploads everything to our corporate servers.
We then upload all user data to the "Five Eyes" Gestapo (Geheime
Staatspolizei) agencies that are our true original investors
and beneficial owners."
"It is truly a proud day for me and all of my servants here
at GoëbbelsBook that we have implemented the revolutionary
total surveillance state vision of Dr. Joseph Goëbbels. I'm
sure that he would be justifiably proud of our accomplishment."
It's a little more complex than just Gramma giving
up some data that she volunteers via a form. It's
sucking in everything that a user does or says and
selling that...everything. Same as Google.
In
many cases you will find people who weren't aware
that FB was selling user data, it's not really
clear, unless you read the TOS fine print it's not
clear. Even in the fine print what they do is
obscured by the way they write it.
If the announcement of what they do with the
data was in big bold letters at the top of FB every
time you logged in the participation would be
different.
This is one reason that although I've got a FB
account I've never provided anything more than the
de minimus information to have that account, and I
don't spend much if any time on it. It's been weeks
since I've logged in to FB.
You may be enjoying the mockery of FB users, but
your line of argument ignores reality.
FB users
indeed knew that the company was "selling
something": advertising. Advertising in the form
of "sponsored posts," newsfeed videos,
solicitations to "like" an advertiser's page,
notifications that someone in your network had
liked an advertiser's page, and on and on and on.
Every user viewed such advertising while using the
service.
And indeed, selling targeted advertising is the
dominant business model for providers of free
content, messaging, email, webhosting, and a host
of other internet services. It is exactly what a
reasonable person would expect FB to be doing,
based on its public disclosures and statements to
the business community, and consistent with privacy
laws. Even educated users would not expect the
company to be selling its user data to third
parties, let alone to government three-letter
agencies. No one would expect the phone app to
illegally log or record phone and message data for
communications outside the app.
Jumanji, I live in heart of silicon valley and the goobook
employees are so self important and associate working for the
goobook surveillance tracking digtal advertising monopolies as
a virtuous thing.
Let's call goobook what they are a
surveillance tracking company that doesn't share any of the
profits from your data with the owner: you.
My solution to these corporate pricks is to cut off their
oxygen: digtal advertising and refuse to let them monetize me
and others promoting using adblocking on mobile.
My solution is for everybody to immediately download brave
browser or equivalent adblocker solution (depending on your
tech knowledge).
Brave blocks advertising malware and tracking by DEFAULT on
any device and operating system rendering digital advertising
model useless.
Whoever controls the browser controls the money.
I use YouTube daily but run it out of brave browser. Zero
ads and you can listen with screen off or while browsing other
content.
We can destroy the value of digtal advertising by mass
adoption of brave browser.
What is digtal advertising worth if ads can't be sent,
viewed or tracked?
Let's take down the goobook surveillance tracking censorship
monopolies. Install brave or equivalent mobile adblocker
immediately.
I created a fake FB account, then 'deleted' it when FB demanded
I prove who I wasn't.
LOL
Does anyone wonder why FB only wants 'real' accounts? Data
mining is so much more profitable when you can assure the
purchaser the 'data' are grade A number one bleeders/spenders.
Which ties in nicely with the US demanding social media account details
with visa applications. You haven't said whether your work is us government
based, but it would be pleasingly ironic if it were.
I'm still confused
by that, actually: allegedly the NSA has all data, from everywhere, so why
ask for the visa applicant's data? Is it too hard to connect physical and
digital people, or are they just seeing if you will admit to your online
indiscretions?
14 day waiting period on facebook account deletes.
Some years ago I created a
facebook account and then deleted it. Deleting it was not easy. When I did the
final delete, it stated that all my data would be deleted, and would not be
recoverable ever. I was also told I would have to **not** log into my account for
14 days after which everything would be gone. If I did log in during that period
the account delete would not occur.
It has been some years and I still live in fear that if I was to "check" if my
account still exists by attempting to log into it I will get a "Welcome back"
message.
I suppose there are worse things. The account could be active and "owned" by
someone else.
The CIA put way too much time, money and effort into Facebook to just
let it fade away. Hell no, they will double down and figure out a way
to keep the concern going, if under a different guise.
But but but...they are listening! They even reformatted so their victims can moar
easily delete private information themselves instead of having to dig
down through twenty two screens to find it!
And Fuckerberg has a mansion. In
Hawaii. With a wall. Because he cares!
They even reformatted so their victims can moar easily delete
private information themselves.....
The funniest part of your comment is the fact people will actually believe
their information was 'deleted' because they push a button that said doing so
would delete the information.
Riiiiiight. And I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale that you can get for a
steal.
"people will actually believe their information was 'deleted' "
Well,
aside from birth and school records, most data will become 'stale' and
worthless to advertisers and agencies. I suspect that your 'old' data will
eventually become 'archived' in a storage array somewhere, essentially,
statistically more worthless as time goes by. Perhaps, adding to a
historical perspective on some future Documentary, about the collapse of
Facebook.
Info on your birth, school, medical, jobs, driving record ... the
authorities already have all that. Facebook is essentially worthless, other
than as a phone book with pictures.
It's amazing that FB employees were THIS NAIVE about what was going on in that
company, thinking it was just about "connecting people." Anyone on the street
with half a brain could see what was going on. Grow up and see the world for
what it is, people.
I think it is more "being ignorant". To me, being naive implies being "an
innocent". These people are hard core coders, computer scientists, network
engineers, etc. What they do is figure out how to do outrageously complex
technical things, and they are very successful at it. Like most scientists
and engineers however, they never stop to ask "should we be doing these
things". They stand on the shoulders of the scientist and engineers who
came before them and continue to progress the state of their art, but never
consider the ethics. I see it all the time at work. Can we develop this
new thing? Sure. Should we develop this new thing? That's not my problem
- management wants this new thing. They are no different than the guards
at a concentration camp herding people to the ovens. I was only following
orders.
Alphabet (the parent company of Google) spent the most as a company on
Lobbying. Facebook's spend on lobbying increased 5500% since 2009. They spent
most lobbying on changes to data privacy.
Have Zuckerberg and the rest of the asseclowns over there realized how
fuccked they really are? It is only a matter of time before class action and
individual lawsuits are filed not only against Facebook (fuck that) but them
personally, for intentionally and willfully creating a data mining operation
disguised as a social network. They will get sued for every penny they have
and will be lucky if they don't end up doing time.
The people who use this tripe are addicts, and like all addicts need rehab.
They couldn't say how many articles are in the US Constitution yet practically
know what Oprah eats for breakfast - and it ain't a Weight Watchers diet!
I got into the dotcom world in 97 got out in '11. Worked for a bunch of big
and small dotcoms. They are all so badly run its hard to describe. rampant
greed zero morality.. The VCs just want their 100:1 return. VCs are idiots.
some are just stupid many are just illegal accounting fraud capitalizing
expenses accelerating revenue recognition over stating audience. People
forget that Fb has already had a bunch of exposed numbers "mistakes". Hope it
goes to zero.
From an evolutionary standpoint, humans are extemely adapted to hiding
feelings, thoughts, plans, motivations, and intentions. This has enabled our
survival for millenia. Our ears don't move toward what or who we're listening
to, and we don't have tails or bristling fur or feathers that would display
our emotions. Facebook causes us to post all this stuff, then takes ownership
and uses it to make a profit any way they can. Social media is not something
that we are adapted to, and we're getting stomped on by the companies that
engineer it.
To me, what is really sad about this whole story is that there is nobody at
Facebook - now or previously - who doesn't know that their company makes its
money by harvesting data and selling it to anyone with a few bucks in their
hand. I believe these employees are all lying when they deny this plain fact.
I believe the same to be true of Google, but of course, Google at least has
never denied it, like Facebook is trying to do now that someone in the MSM has
bothered to report about it.
Anyone here ever work with chickens...the henhouse/chicken analogy is often
used with the facebook...when you walk into the henhouse sometimes the hens
they aren't expecting visitors and they get all fussy and show their agitation
through clucking and squawking and fussing about...but then after a few
moments they go back to what they were doing as if nothing ever happened. That
about what is going on here. Facebook users and employees will go back to work
for their owners in a few more days and it will have been all forgotten.
Since most users of Facebook are gossiping women and deeply closeted
homosexuals, I don't see this having a material impact on user growth. It may
even suck more of them in.
According to Thomas Paine, all the Facebook, Amazon, Google and Tesla are
products of the DOD and are losing their hidden government support. That is
the real reason that people like Zuckerberg and Soros are divesting.
People will forget about any Facebook scandal after another scandal surfaces
elsewhere in 3, 2, 1 and....... There goes the school of ADHD zombie fish-head
people onto another hook, the scandal of the next week. The next scandal will
hit the top of the pond and sink, and the fish-head school of people-fish will
swim over to it and stare at the scandal to see if it moves. People are
grotesquely simple minded.
fb will not recover from massive spying vs people will once again log on to
say something snarky, see another picture of their neighbor's cat and above
all else get a "like". OMG I'm important!
Soros has billions to funnel
through the resistance that is fb for the furtherance of his global agenda.
They may be down, but certainly not out.
So now the FB employees finally see what the bloodsucking Vampire
Zuckerberg and Frankenstein Bosworth really are: the enemy of the people.
Time for a mass revolt, pitchforks and torches to burn down the platform.
The Facebook Wall photograph is Photoshoped. While everyone else has
written in freehand in chalk, the "Maybe someone dies!?". "Why We Spy So
Much?" and "WTF?" posts are set in perfect computer type.
Facebook is a
monster of deceit. Why does this article need to lie with Photoshopped
photographs? If Facebook thinks we're rubes and yokels, so does this
article.
"We've never believed the ends justify the means
." ~
Zuckerfucker
Bull-EFFIN-Shit.
The Liberal Credo is
"THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS"
I can't tell you how many Liberals I've asked this very question and they
will flat out tell you that if you have to throw babies into a branch
chipper to get what you want,
YOU DO IT
. Lefties/Communists have
always believed in mass murder to get what they want - so - spying on a few
million people certainly doesn't give the pause.
But IMHO Amazon may have a ton of exposure on privacy issues.
Didn't they start a cloud business because they were already keeping so
much data on users that they figured they should offer the service to others
as well?
First FB gets cremated over a few months - drip drip drip of all the
problems - maybe all the way down to fair value of $1.95 (VS the high of
$195).
But when news hits that Amazon not only does the same shit as FB - but on a
larger scale and worse it will drop like a rock.
That will also bring Apple and Google down.
Always wondering what causes the next market crash - it could be this.
Remember when Faceberg was below it's IPO price and heading to zero , when
magically it started to go higher and higher. Yeah, so do I. Time to go back
where it belongs Zero
What a difference two months makes. Back in January, with jobs aplenty and Americans
spending like drunken sailors (sending their savings rate to the lowest on record), average
hourly earnings suddenly spiked, unleashing the February VIXplosion over concerns that the Fed
is behind the curve and will be forced to hike much more aggressively.
Well, fast forward to today, when all those "green shoots" are either dead or on the verge,
and after today's Personal Income and Spending report, it appears that it is stagflation that
is once looming.
First, core PCE, the Fed's favorite inflation gauge, rose 1.6%YoY in February 2017; the
biggest gain since April 2017. Meanwhile, the PCE deflator rose by 1.8%, coming hotter than
expected, just as the cellular service price collapse falls out of the Y/Y data, sending annual
inflation higher by 0.3%, and is set spook the next set of CPI data. In other words, inflation
is here.
Then there is the US consumer's reaction, and while until just a few months back the US
savings rate was at all time lows, it has since jumped to 3.4%, the highest since August 2017,
as households are no longer spending more than they can afford, a theme we observed at the end
of 2017. This also means that spending is lagging income for 3 consecutive months, as something
appears to have spooked American consumers.
That something may be wages and salaries themselves, because while the BLS' statistical
approximation of average hourly wages is just that, the BEA's personal income actually carries
wages and salaries data for both private and government workers. What it found is that after
peaking in December, wage growth for these two worker groups has declined for 2 consecutive
months, confirming what many have warned, namely that the recent period of benign wage increase
is over, and now the slowdown begins.
Firs of all Mark Galeotti is very weak. That's incurable.
I want your money poor Pinocchio -- that the new slogan of May government. Kind of
compensation for Brexit losses at Russian oligarchs expense.
What Russophobe Galiotti does not understand is that this another nail in the coffin of neoliberalism. As soon as you
start to distriminate between oligarche neoliberalism stops and nationalism starts
Notable quotes:
"... Of course, the irony is that by driving out Russian money, London would in part be doing Putin's work for him ..."
"... He has launched a " de-offshorization " campaign to try to persuade, cajole, and intimidate oligarchs and minigarchs into bringing their money back home. Along with the stabilization of the economy as a whole, this has had some limited success. While more than $31 billion flowed out of the country last year alone, this is a dramatic fall from 2014's $154 billion . ..."
"... The thought that Britain would actually be returning capital into Putin's grasp may be an uncomfortable one. After all, a third possible policy goal would be actively to seek to undermine the regime in Moscow. ..."
This is also a project in which further international cooperation would be crucial. Chasing
that money and the influence it buys out of London but seeing it find comfortable new homes in
Paris, Frankfurt, and New York is only half the job done and will do little to chasten Moscow.
Although it will be difficult to persuade others to turn away tempting business, the unexpected
support Britain is receiving from European Union partners in particular suggests this may be an
opportune moment to convince them that in its experience this money is too toxic to be safe and
that this is a Western, not just a British, problem.
Of course, the irony is that by driving out Russian money, London would in part be doing
Putin's work for him . Since 2014, the Russian economy has been in the doldrums.
Furthermore, Putin is a man who understands power better than economics, and he is unhappy to
see elites stash their money outside his grasp.
Putin is a man who understands power better than economics, and he is unhappy to see elites
stash their money outside his grasp.
He has launched a "
de-offshorization " campaign to try to persuade, cajole, and intimidate oligarchs and
minigarchs into bringing their money back home. Along with the stabilization of the economy as
a whole, this has had some limited success. While more than $31
billion flowed out of the country last year alone, this is a dramatic fall from 2014's
$154 billion .
The thought that Britain would actually be returning capital into Putin's grasp may be
an uncomfortable one. After all, a third possible policy goal would be actively to seek to
undermine the regime in Moscow. Overt efforts at regime change would be dangerous and
likely counterproductive, but London may feel that it should not pass up opportunities to
weaken the Kremlin
London may feel that it should not pass up opportunities to weaken the Kremlin
, in the hope that this may tame its appetite for playing confrontational
geopolitics.
... ... ...
Mark Galeotti is a senior research fellow at the Institute of International Affairs Prague and a visiting fellow with
the European Council on Foreign Relations.
"... TL;DR – the entire post by James is one gigantic propaganda pastiche of myths and slander, that no serious historian would ever repeat with clean conscience – only propagandists with a clear and present agenda. ..."
"... It's impossible to understand Stalinism without reference to world economic developments during the interwar period (collapse of the balance-of-power in Europe, the demise of the liberal economic order, the agrarian depression which affected the terms of barter between town and countryside unfavorably leading to huge antagonism of the peasantry to the rule of the urban workers in Russia)(see Polanyi, 1944: 255-256 for details). ..."
"What emerges is a horrifying character that began as a bank robber and ended as a mass
executioner and the instigator of man- made famines that killed millions."
It is good to know that supposedly "accurate" historical documentary made in the West are
completely useless propaganda drivels, because:
a) Stalin never robbed banks. So-called "Tiflis's' expropriation" of 26 June 1907 had been
carried out by the group under Simon "Kamo" Ter-Petrosyan. Stalin was arrested in 1908 and
back then the Czarist authorities did not accuse him of bank robbing – he was
"political prisoner". There is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that Stalin was a
bandit.
b) Stalin was not a "mass executioner". The state wields the monopoly over violence.
c) Man-made nature of the so-called Holodomor is a myth, disproved many times over.
Good to know, that propaganda quality of the Western "blue screen" is effective enough to
convince people of the "correct" narrative and switch off any critical thinking. Useful for
the current times.
"There are no official reports about the height of Joseph Stalin because Stalin was
sensitive about it; he went to great lengths to conceal his lack of stature from the Soviet
people and the world because he stood only at 5 feet 4 or 5 feet 5"
Please, explain – how he "concealed" it? Was the state officials back in 1920-50
required to post their height somewhere for everyone to see?
"He was an un-attractive man with his pockmarked face, bad teeth, his limp, and his
withered left arm yet his deepest ambition was to develop his country, weaken or kill rivals
and have his image plastered on every public building."
How do YOU know what Stalin wanted ? That's a speculation. And as badmouthing his
appearance – yeah, kudos to you! You did it!
"But from those things he learned little. He lacked refinement, elegance, social
polish, and compassion."
Again, I have to ask – who's claiming this? Who do you know that he "learned
little"? How do you know that "his selfish self-worship led his soul by the nose"? You are
passing soundbites from that show for the facts
"But Stalin was a spiritual primitive. He lived in a society where having a conscience
was seen as a vulnerability, not a strength."
First of all – define the term "a spiritual primitive". Next – what society
are you talking about here? The Soviet Union?
"That's how Stalin's mind worked."
You keep saying this. How do you, James, know how Stalin's mind worked? Are you ESPer?
TL;DR – the entire post by James is one gigantic propaganda pastiche of myths and
slander, that no serious historian would ever repeat with clean conscience – only
propagandists with a clear and present agenda. A person who can repeat with a straight face a
clear and many times disproven lie that:
"Of course, the day after Hitler invaded his country, June 22, 1941, Stalin broke down
and for several days was so drunk on brandy and vodka that he was not able to
function."
becomes guilty of lying himself. You, James, are no better than all those propagandists
and no-brains that you were decrying in your past blogposts. Instead of thinking and
researching, instead of trying to find the truth, you repeat lies and suppress any urge in
others to see the reality as it is.
P.S. Oh, and one more thing:
"Communism reduced people to animals: they were merely food."
What about capitalism then? Or maybe you are projecting here?
Agree with many of Harper's observations on the sociopathic personality, and on the
importance of empathy, but then he loses me at "When President Reagan said that the Soviet
state was an "evil empire" many objected, including me. But the more I learn, the more I
endorse that judgment. Communism reduced people to animals."
But did communism had anything to do with it? Was Hitler a communist? Woodrow Wilson?
Christopher Columbus? Churchill? Jefferson Davis? Was life wonderful in pre-Soviet
Russia?
Today many Russians view Stalin positively. He industrialized the USSR, defeated the
fascists, and made Russia a world power. While the West was mired in the Great Depression,
Russia's economy hummed. We should acknowledge Stalin's mistakes, but we should also
acknowledge that the poor and the working class may have been better off under Stalin than
they had been before. Admittedly that may not be saying much.
The way I see it, thinking of Stalin as a heartless beast in order to understand the
developments in the Soviet Union in the first half of the 20th century does two things for
us:
It provides a simple answer to the question: how could these horrific evil atrocities
take place?
It puts our mind at ease, thinking that if only people would be more moral or good,
everything would be different.
The question why things developed as they did in Russia is not a trivial one, however it
is also not a question that's beyond our understanding. In fact, plenty of serious answers
have been provided over the years.
It's impossible to understand Stalinism without reference to world economic developments
during the interwar period (collapse of the balance-of-power in Europe, the demise of the
liberal economic order, the agrarian depression which affected the terms of barter between
town and countryside unfavorably leading to huge antagonism of the peasantry to the rule of
the urban workers in Russia)(see Polanyi, 1944: 255-256 for details).
If you want an answer that can explain the path towards the horrors of Stalinism and also
fit into a tweet, here is one:
autarchy >> New Economic Policy >> crises and global depression >>
Stalinism
It is still a bit longer than the usual - Stalin was a murderous lunatic thirsty for
blood.
P.S. He was a murderer but definitely not a unattractive one. Google any picture of Stalin
in his youth and you will be convinced :)
Stalin was certainly unattractive as a person, ruthless and cynical but not stupid. However
rotten his methods (and they were rotten) I think you have to make allowances for the
environment Stalin and the Bolsheviks faced in governing Russia.
Their driving need was to transform a huge backward country that had been largely
populated by illiterate serfs - slaves less that Sixty years before the revolution that
replaced an imperial government which itself was dissolute, corrupt and almost as brutal as
Stalin. Desperate times called for desperate measures. There were no "democratic traditions'
as we like to call them, brutality was the usual form of regulation in Russia and social
institutions of government were not strong. Russian infrastructure was generations behind the
West.
We could catalogue for hours the stupid inhuman brutality of the Bolshevik regime before
WWII and the personal foibles of Stalin (his devotion to the crackpot agricultural theories
of Lysenko - "vernalisation", etc. were responsible for starvation), we can endlessly examine
the crimes of Beria and company, but we cannot obtain a full picture of Stalin without
considering the challenges he faced.
This essay is a very primitive attempt to promote "cult of personality" myths.
The author does not understand the history and the role of personalities in history. Thus
he can't properly evaluate key historical figures such as Stalin. His treatment of Stalin is
simply petty.
Stalin was a monumental historic figure for several reasons but first of all as a
representative of a new political force on the historical scene. I think that this was not
workers -- that was partially a smoke screen -- but some kind of mafia-style organized gang
of middle-class intellectuals hell-bent on acquiring state power.
Also, Stalin was the first to build a new theocratic state were Bolshevics ideology became
a new state religion. This model proved to viable and later was replicated elsewhere. It
currently exists not only in China and Cuba, but also in Islamic variations ("Political
Islam" of Muslim Brotherhood, etc.)
Under Stalin, Bolshevism became an official religion and heretics were burned at stake.
Like popes before him, Stalin and his followers felt that the killing (and sending to Gulag)
of heretics was just.
Therefore, it is more proper to view Stalin was a representative of a historically new
political force which demonstrated the possibility of acquiring state power by a small group
of intellectuals powered by ideology (In case of Bolsheviks with some minimal financial and
organizational help of hostile for this particular state foreign powers -- Germans military
intelligence )
The same fit was later replicated by neoliberalism (aka "Trotskyism for the rich", which
replaced the Party with the network of think tanks).
Neoliberals also were a small, tightly knit circle of intellectuals which came to power
via stealth variant of coup d'état ("quite coup" as Johnson called it) displacing the
New Deal capitalism.
And Bolsheviks as a political force made a profound impact on the course of human history
and should be viewed as such. BTW the existence of the USSR was a hugely positive development
for people outside the USSR.
For example, in the USA it helped to suppress cannibalistic instincts on the US financial
elite, which returned to the scene in full glory after the USSR collapse after neoliberalism
won in the USA and elsewhere.
Due to the existence of the USSR, two post-war decades were and probably will be forever
considered as a golden age for US workers and the USA as a country.
"Doom porn" argument aside it was almost 10 years since the last financial crisis. And
neoliberalism tend to produce financial crisis with amazing regularity. This is the nature of the
beast. So timing might be wrong, but the danger is here.
Tendrils of evidence point to a coordinated campaign that included the Obama White House and
the Democratic National Committee starring Hillary Clinton. Robert Mueller even comes into the
picture both at the Uranium One end of the story and the other end concerning the activities of
his old friend, Mr. Comey. Most tellingly of all, Attorney General Jeff Sessions was not shoved
out of office but remains shrouded in silence and mystery as this melodrama plays out, tick,
tick, tick.
None of this makes President Trump a more reassuring figure. His lack of decorum remains as
awesome as his apparent lack of common sense. But he has labored against the most intense
campaign of coordinated calumny ever seen against a chief executive and his fortitude, at
least, is impressive. What is unspooling for him, and the body politic, are the nation's
finances, and the dog of an economy that gets wagged by finance. Yesterday's 724-point dump in
the Dow Jones Industrial Average is liable to not be a fluke event, but the beginning of a
cascade into the pitiless maw of reality - the reality that just about everything is grossly
mispriced.
There is plenty of dysfunction in plain sight to suggest that the financial markets can't
bear the strain of unreality anymore. Between the burgeoning trade wars and the adoption in
congress this week of a fiscally suicidal spending bill, you'd want to put your fingers in your
ears to not be deafened by the roar of markets tumbling. A 40 to 75 percent drop in the equity
markets will leave a lot of one-percent big fish gasping on the beach as the tide rolls out.
But the minnows and anchovies will suffer too, as regular economic activity declines in
response to tumbling markets. And then the Federal Reserve will ride to the rescue with QE-4,
which will very sharply drive the dollar toward worthlessness. The result: a nation with a
sucking chest wound, whirling around the drain en route to political pandemonium.
Look on the bright side Kuntsler ~ You'll keep selling doom porn articles &
newsletters so you can keep playing the $2 exacta & daily double tickets at the Saratoga
Springs late summer meet.
From Slope of Hope: Way back in 2014, I suggested shorting Rent-a-Center, partly because the chart was a disaster, and partly
because the company was evil. In spite of a completely fake, propped-up-by-trillions bull market, RCII has lost the vast majority
of its market cap since that post.
I didn't really know what kinds of stuff RCII was pulling, so just out of the blue, I clicked the very first thing I saw to
witness what kind of deal these guys were offering. So let's say you wanted a laptop. Here's what they offer:
All right, so you've got a piece-of-shit little laptop, ostensibly retailing at $785, which they'll "rent to own" at $25 per
WEEK, and in seventy-one short weeks, you'll own it. Of course, by that time, it'll be absolutely worthless, but you'll still own
this totally outdated door stop. That comes to an annual interest rate of about 90%.
But it gets worse. without even trying, I looked to see the price of this product (ignoring the "retail price" RCII claims)
and - - - again, without even making an effort - - here's what I found:
So if you're such a sorry son of a bitch that $320 is out of the question, you can instead send the scumbags at RCII $25 a
week for 71 weeks, spending $1765 on something which costs about one-SIXTH that price. So something like 450% interest.
It's heartening to see these shameless exploiters crumble:
Relax, guys. What normally happens is that the laptop is repossessed after the
first missed payment (typically about a month after the contract is signed), and RAC
puts it back on the shelf and re-rents it. In the meantime, they've made $75 and
spent nothing.
Basically, RAC makes out by having its inventory in people's dens
instead of having to maintain expensive warehouses. Furniture retailer called
Heilig-Meyers yoosta have the same business model: Rent it, repossess it, rent it
again. Friend of mine was an accountant for them, and he had to learn a whole
'nother level of math.
Ebay has business class refurb, off lease DELL HPE Lenovo units for like $150. yeah,
it's a few years old and not a cool guy macbook air but good enough, if you want a
better processor you can go up $20 or $30 bucks. Not horrendous.
I had a friend who was living in a 2 br apt with his Dad with no furniture, poor
as fuck basically. He used FOIA to get contact info for soldiers at most of the
large bases in the US and started mailing out little 3x5 postcards advertising cheap
financing on desktop PCs. This was early 90s when puters were not yet ubiquitous.
Same biz model as Rent a Center. Over priced up front cost and a ridiculous interest
rate. All done with military allotments so the default rate was near zero. He made
millions before state attorney generals started suing him. He setlled out of court
by paying some money to TPTB and kept his ill gotten gains. I asked him why these
folks don't save for 4 months and go pay cash for a puter, he replied "they want it
right the fuck now". Greed. He used it against them.
$319.99 is the true retail price. But, if these scumbags are doing any volume,
they're probably picking them up wholesale for around $200/ea. That makes the
effective interest rate about 750%.
So, either their potential customers turned
out to be smarter than they thought or,
Someone is doing a lot of skimming off the books (i.e., their investors were even
bigger fools than their prospective customers).
The rapid rise of oligarchy and wealth and income inequality is the great moral, economic, and political issue of our time. Yet,
it gets almost no coverage from the corporate media.
How often do network newscasts report on the 40 million Americans living in poverty, or that we have the highest rate of childhood
poverty of almost any major nation on earth? How often does the media discuss the reality that our society today is more unequal
than at any time since the 1920s with the top 0.1% now owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%? How often have you heard the
media report the stories of millions of people who today are working longer hours for lower wages than was the case some 40 years
ago?
How often has ABC, CBS or NBC discussed the role that the
Koch brothers and other billionaires play in creating
a political system which allows the rich and the powerful to significantly control elections and the legislative process in Congress?
We need to ask the hard questions that the corporate media fails to ask
Sadly, the answer to these questions is: almost never. The corporate media has failed to let the American people fully understand
the economic forces shaping their lives and causing many of them to work two or three jobs, while CEOs make hundreds of times more
than they do. Instead, day after day, 24/7, we're inundated with the relentless dramas of the Trump White House, Stormy Daniels,
and the latest piece of political gossip.
We urgently need to discuss the reality of today's economy and political system, and fight to create an economy that works for
everyone and not just the one percent.
We need to ask the hard questions that the corporate media fails to ask: who owns America, and who has the political power? Why,
in the richest country in the history of the world are so many Americans living in poverty? What are the forces that have caused
the American middle class, once the envy of the world, to decline precipitously? What can we learn from countries that have succeeded
in reducing income and wealth inequality, creating a strong and vibrant middle class, and providing basic human services to everyone?
We need to hear from struggling Americans whose stories are rarely told in newspapers or television. Unless we understand the
reality of life in America for working families, we're never going to change that reality.
Until we understand that the rightwing Koch brothers are more politically powerful than the Republican National Committee, and
that big banks, pharmaceutical companies, and multinational corporations are spending unlimited sums of money to rig the political
process, we won't be able to overturn the disastrous US supreme court decision on Citizens United, move to the public funding of
elections and end corporate greed.
Until we understand that the US federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and that people cannot make it on $9
or $10 an hour, we're not going to be able to pass a living wage of at least $15 an hour.
Until we understand that multinational corporations have been writing our trade and tax policies for the past 40 years to allow
them to throw American workers out on the street and move to low-wage countries, we're not going to be able to enact fair laws ending
the race to the bottom and making the wealthy and the powerful pay their fair share.
Until we understand that we live in a highly competitive global economy and that it is counterproductive that millions of our
people cannot afford a higher education or leave school deeply in debt, we will not be able to make public colleges and universities
tuition free.
Until we understand that we are the only major country on earth not to guarantee healthcare to all and that we spend far more
per capita on healthcare than does any other country, we're not going to be able to pass a Medicare for all, single-payer program.
Until we understand that the US pays, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs because pharmaceutical companies
can charge whatever price they want for life-saving medicine, we're not going to be able to lower the outrageous price of these drugs.
Until we understand that climate change is real, caused by humans, and causing devastating problems around the world, especially
for poor people, we're not going to be able to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel and into sustainable forms of energy.
We need to raise political consciousness in America and help us move forward with a progressive agenda that meets the needs of
our working families. It's up to us all to join the conversation -- it's just the beginning.
We're witnessing classic psychopathic warfare. Psychopaths play mind games. They make
outrageous accusations and force you to spend thousands of hours spinning your wheels in an
attempt to Prove A Negative.
I know because I worked for a psychopath who did it frequently, maintaining a culture of
fear even among the executive board members. One nice fellow was so affected by the stress
that he developed cancer and died. (The manipulative SOB didn't have the balls to attend the
funeral. Too bad.)
Again, this is classic psychopathy. I was singled out at one point for something special,
being accused in front of the Board of something "Too Horrible To Describe" (those exact
words), but if I apologized for "it" then there would be an opportunity to make amends.
Obviously, I had no idea, and got so rattled (I was a stupid kid) that I nearly burst into
tears. A few minutes after I left, I heard them all laughing about it. People are not human
beings to a psychopath, they're instruments to be manipulated.
I agree with you about the psychopaths. I have worked for and with several. They are
emotionless pathological liars devoid of empathy and live each day trying to focus attention
on themselves in any way possible to feed their ego. They are born with flawed genes but
usually breed the most which is why there are so many out there, you can't avoid getting near
them.
Psychopaths enjoy the thrill of lying and sowing discord amongst anyone they can bully,
i.e. Staff in lower positions, (yes the chief burger flipper can be a psychopath to the
junior burger flippers - it's not all about CEO's). They also bully anyone smaller, weaker or
less fortunate than themselves. A lot of them do get locked up, but too many roam free.
The end of the petrodollar effectively cancels the MIC's fiat credit card. They will be
rummaging their sofas for spare change. Expect them to use whatever they can scrape together
for their own last gasp battle of the bulge.
the bulk of the article withstanding, i can't understand how someone who would put
together this article would use a sequitur such as:
Novichok (the inventor of which, by the way, lives in the US),
what fucking difference does it make where he lives? he is russian. and when he invented
the stuff he was working for the soviet union intelligence services. spots leopards. and said
inventer makes the highlighted claim from the link below. so why bring the inventer of this
stuff into the discussion. bad choice of research.
You think that someone that can reproduce this nerve agent who is now under full control
of the CIA no doubt is someone that shouldn't be mentioned? You jest!!! Oh and he knows Putin
ordered it!!! ROFLOL!!! You are full of shit up to your eyeballs!
Like many high demand cults neoliberalism is a trap, from which it is very difficult to escape...
Notable quotes:
"... A large, open-border global free market would be left, not subject to popular control but managed by a globally dispersed, transnational one percent. And the whole process of making this happen would be camouflaged beneath the altruistic stylings of a benign humanitarianism. ..."
"... Globalists, as neoliberal capitalists are often called, also understood that democracy, defined by a smattering of individual rights and a voting booth, was the ideal vehicle to usher neoliberalism into the emerging world. Namely because democracy, as commonly practiced, makes no demands in the economic sphere. Socialism does. Communism does. These models directly address ownership of the means of production. Not so democratic capitalism. This permits the globalists to continue to own the means of production while proclaiming human rights triumphant in nations where interventions are staged. ..."
"... The enduring lie is that there is no democracy without economic democracy. ..."
This 'Washington Consensus' is the false promise promoted by the West. The reality is quite
different. The crux of neoliberalism is to eliminate democratic government by downsizing,
privatizing, and deregulating it. Proponents of neoliberalism recognize that the state is the
last bulwark of protection for the common people against the predations of capital. Remove the
state and they'll be left defenseless .
Think about it. Deregulation eliminates the laws. Downsizing eliminates departments and their
funding. Privatizing eliminates the very purpose of the state by having the private sector take
over its traditional responsibilities.
Ultimately, nation-states would dissolve except perhaps for armies and tax systems. A large, open-border global free
market would be left, not subject to popular control but managed by a globally dispersed, transnational one percent. And the
whole process of making this happen would be camouflaged beneath the altruistic stylings of a benign humanitarianism.
Globalists, as neoliberal capitalists are often called, also understood that democracy, defined
by a smattering of individual rights and a voting booth, was the ideal vehicle to usher
neoliberalism into the emerging world. Namely because democracy, as commonly practiced, makes
no demands in the economic sphere. Socialism does. Communism does. These models directly
address ownership of the means of production. Not so democratic capitalism. This permits the
globalists to continue to own the means of production while proclaiming human rights triumphant
in nations where interventions are staged.
The enduring lie is that there is no democracy
without economic democracy.
What matters to the one percent and the media conglomerates that disseminate their worldview is
that the official definitions are accepted by the masses. The real effects need never be known.
The neoliberal ideology (theory) thus conceals the neoliberal reality (practice). And for the
masses to accept it, it must be mass produced. Then it becomes more or less invisible by virtue
of its universality.
"... In a short span of time in the 1970s, dozens of think tanks were established across the western world and billions of dollars were spent proselytizing the tenets of the Powell Memo in 1971, which galvanized a counter-revolution to the liberal upswing of the Sixties. The neoliberal economic model of deregulation, downsizing, and privatization was preached by the Reagan-Thatcher junta, liberalized by the Clinton regime, temporarily given a bad name by the unhinged Bush administration, and saved by telegenic restoration of the Obama years. ..."
"... Today think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the Brookings Institute, Stratfor, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Council on Foreign Relations, Carnegie Endowment, the Open Society Foundation, and the Atlantic Council, among many others, funnel millions of dollars in donations into cementing neoliberal attitudes in the American mind. ..."
"... The ideological assumptions, which serve to justify what you could call neocolonial tactics, are relatively clear: the rights of the individual to be free of overreach from monolithic institutions like the state. Activist governments are inherently inefficient and lead directly to totalitarianism. Markets must be free and individuals must be free to act in those markets. People must be free to choose, both politically and commercially, in the voting booth and at the cash register. ..."
"... This conception of markets and individuals is most often formulated as "free-market democracy," a misleading conceit that conflates individual freedom with the economic freedom of capital to exploit labor. So when it comes to foreign relations, American and western aid would only be given on the condition that the borrowers accepted the tenets of an (highly manipulable) electoral system and vowed to establish the institutions and legal structures required to fully realize a western market economy. ..."
In Christopher Nolan's captivating and visually dazzling film Inception, a practitioner of
psychic corporate espionage must plant and idea inside a CEO's head. The process is called
inception, and it represents the frontier of corporate influence, in which mind spies no longer
just "extract" ideas from the dreams of others, but seed useful ideas in a target's
subconscious.
Inception is a well-crafted piece of futuristic sci-fi drama, but some of the ideas it
imparts are already deeply embedded in the American subconscious.
The notion of inception, of hatching an idea in the mind of a man or woman without his or
her knowledge, is the kernel of propaganda, a black art practiced in the States since the First
World War. Today we live beneath an invisible cultural hegemony, a set of ideas implanted in
the mass mind by the U.S. state and its corporate media over decades. Invisibility seems to
happen when something is either obscure or ubiquitous. In a propaganda system, an overarching
objective is to render the messaging invisible by universalizing it within the culture.
Difference is known by contrast. If there are no contrasting views in your field of vision,
it's easier to accept the ubiquitous explanation. The good news is that the ideology is
well-known to some who have, for one lucky reason or another, found themselves outside the
hegemonic field and are thus able to contrast the dominant worldview with alternative opinions.
On the left, the ruling ideology might be described as neoliberalism, a particularly vicious
form of imperial capitalism that, as would be expected, is camouflaged in the lineaments of
humanitarian aid and succor.
Inception 1971
In a short span of time in the 1970s, dozens of think tanks were established across the
western world and billions of dollars were spent proselytizing the tenets of the Powell
Memo in 1971, which galvanized a counter-revolution to the liberal upswing of the Sixties.
The neoliberal economic model of deregulation, downsizing, and privatization was preached by
the Reagan-Thatcher junta, liberalized by the Clinton regime, temporarily given a bad name by
the unhinged Bush administration, and saved by telegenic restoration of the Obama years.
The
ideology that underlay the
model saturated academia, notably at the University of Chicago, and the mainstream media,
principally at The New York Times. Since then it has trickled down to the general populace, to
whom it now feels second nature.
Today think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the Brookings
Institute, Stratfor, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Council on Foreign
Relations, Carnegie Endowment, the Open Society Foundation, and the Atlantic Council, among
many others, funnel millions of dollars in donations into cementing neoliberal attitudes in the
American mind.
The ideological assumptions, which serve to justify what you could call neocolonial tactics,
are relatively clear: the rights of the individual to be free of overreach from monolithic
institutions like the state. Activist governments are inherently inefficient and lead directly
to totalitarianism. Markets must be free and individuals must be free to act in those markets.
People must be free to choose, both politically and commercially, in the voting booth and at
the cash register.
This conception of markets and individuals is most often formulated as
"free-market democracy," a misleading conceit that conflates individual freedom with the
economic freedom of capital to exploit labor. So when it comes to foreign relations, American
and western aid would only be given on the condition that the borrowers accepted the tenets of
an (highly manipulable) electoral system and vowed to establish the institutions and legal
structures required to fully realize a western market economy.
These demands were supplemented
with notions of the individual right to be free of oppression, some fine rhetoric about women
and minorities, and somewhat more quietly, a judicial understanding that corporations were
people, too. Together, an unshackled economy and an unfettered populace, newly equipped with
individual rights, would produce the same flourishing and nourishing demos of mid-century
America that had been the envy of humanity.
"... he Dems disgust me with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations). ..."
"... Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this around and I doubt it's even possible. ..."
"... The Real Reason Establishment Frauds Hate Trump and Obsess About Russia https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2018/02/20/the-real-reason-establishment-frauds-hate-trump-and-obsess-about-russia/ ..."
"... Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly, for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party. ..."
jsn @16 & 40, in complete agreement with you. Great comments! T he Dems disgust me
with their neo-McCarthyism and the Repubs disgust me because of the way they are playing out
their hand right now as well. Games within corrupt games, and yet normal behavior especially in
waning empires (or other types of polities, including powerful int'l corporations).
Chapter 14 of Guns, Germs and Steel is titled "From Egalitarianism to Kleptocracy" and
it used to be available online but my old link is dead and I couldn't find a new one. But a
basic definition should suffice: "Kleptocracy, alternatively cleptocracy or kleptarchy, is a
form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the
personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the
wider population, often without pretense of honest service." I have no idea how one turns this
around and I doubt it's even possible.
Back when I used to subscribe to STRATFOR, founder George Friedman always made a point of
evaluating the elites of whatever country he was analyzing and how they operated amongst
themselves and relative to the people and how effective they were or were not in governing a
country. But he never did that for the US. I would have paid extra for that report! But of
course he could not stay in business if he did such a thing as those people are his
clients.
I think Mike Krieger over at Liberty Blitzkrieg nails it from another perspective with this
post:
Blaming Russia for all the nation's problems serves several key purposes for various
defenders of the status quo. For discredited neocons and neoliberals who never met a failed war
based on lies they didn't support, it provides an opportunity to rehabilitate their torched
reputations by masquerading as fierce patriots against the latest existential enemy. Similarly,
for those who lived in denial about who Obama really was for eight years, latching on to the
Russia narrative allows them to reassure themselves that everything really was fine before
Trump and Russia came along and ruined the party.
By throwing every problem in Putin's lap, the entrenched bipartisan status quo can tell
themselves (and everybody else) that it wasn't really them and their policies that voters
rejected in 2016, rather, the American public was tricked by cunning, nefarious Russians.
Ridiculous for sure, but never underestimate the instinctive human desire to deny
accountability for one's own failures. It's always easier to blame than to accept
responsibility.
That said, there's a much bigger game afoot beyond the motivations of individuals looking to
save face. The main reason much of the highest echelons of American power are united against
Trump has nothing to do with his actual policies. Instead, they're terrified that -- unlike
Obama -- he's a really bad salesman for empire. This sort of Presidential instability threatens
the continuance of their well oiled and exceedingly corrupt gravy train. Hillary Clinton was a
sure thing, Donald Trump remains an unpredictable wildcard.
... Obama said all the right things while methodically doing the bidding of oligarchy. He
captured the imagination of millions, if not billions, around the world with his soaring
rhetoric, yet rarely skipped a beat when it came to the advancement of imperial policies. He
made bailing out Wall Street, droning civilians and cracking down on journalists seem
progressive. He said one thing, did another, and people ate it up. This is an extraordinarily
valuable quality when it comes to a vicious and unelected deep state that wants to keep a
corrupt empire together.
Trump has the exact opposite effect. Sure, he also frequently says one thing and then does
another, but he doesn't provide the same feel good quality to empire that Obama did. He's
simply not the warm and fuzzy salesman for oligarchy and empire Obama was, thus his inability
to sugarcoat state-sanctioned murder forces a lot of people to confront the uncomfortable
hypocrisies in our society that many would prefer not to admit.
------------
I can't stand Kushner's smirky face and got a good chuckle from this prince's fall as I am
not a fan of his passion for Israel. But I don't think he's a stupid idiot either. He's
probably very smart in business, but he seems to have no feel for politics. Trump is much
better at it than Kushner. Of course they are going after Kushner as a way to attack and
disadvantage Trump. Politics is a form of warfare after all.
My take is that Trump survives but mostly contained by the Borg
Neoliberal economists are a new type of clergy. As simple as this. Neoliberal God is great that's what they are preaching to students.
Notable quotes:
"... Bronze Age: Greatest Age EVAH! ..."
"... It's surprising economists feel the need to engage in happy talk, considering that markets are supposed to be natural, just, and efficient. Like clergy preaching to a perpetually backsliding laity about the one true God, Whom only a fool would doubt. If God were so great, there'd be no need to harp on it. In any case, this goes some way toward accounting for Bennet's statement. ..."
"... It takes a half-educated person to say something like that. First you get the ideas by way of a certain education, and then you don't think about them, in part because the educators discourage that kind of thing. ..."
"[Capitalism] has been the greatest engine of, it's been the greatest anti-poverty program
and engine of progress that we've seen."
I can almost smell the economics section of my local bookstore. Strange science,
economics. Judging from the titles, much of it consists of cheerleading. Very different from
history, anthropology, or sociology.
I never see history titles like Bronze Age: Greatest Age EVAH!It's
surprising economists feel the need to engage in happy talk, considering that markets are
supposed to be natural, just, and efficient. Like clergy preaching to a perpetually
backsliding laity about the one true God, Whom only a fool would doubt. If God were so great,
there'd be no need to harp on it. In any case, this goes some way toward accounting for
Bennet's statement.
It takes a half-educated person to say something like that. First you get the ideas by
way of a certain education, and then you don't think about them, in part because the
educators discourage that kind of thing.
At the core of Trumpism is the rejection of neoliberalism
Pat Buchanan does not understand neoliberalism well and mixes apples with oranges, but the key idea expressed here stands: " Consider
this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants, not one of whom ever built
a great nation. Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits since Bush I. Our cities have
been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers' wages have stagnated. The economic independence Hamilton sought and Republican
presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history."
Notable quotes:
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever." ..."
"I walk through this world with greater courage and hope when I find myself in a relation of friendship and intimacy with this
great man, whose fame has gone out not only over all Russia, but the world. We regard Marshal Stalin's life as most precious to the
hopes and hearts of all of us."
Returning home, Churchill assured a skeptical Parliament, "I know of no Government which stands to its obligations, even in its
own despite, more solidly than the Russian Soviet Government."
George W. Bush, with the U.S. establishment united behind him, invaded Iraq with the goal of creating a Vermont in the Middle
East that would be a beacon of democracy to the Arab and Islamic world.
Ex-Director of the NSA Gen. William Odom correctly called the U.S. invasion the greatest strategic blunder in American history.
But Bush, un-chastened, went on to preach a crusade for democracy with the goal of "ending tyranny in our world."
... ... ...
After our victory in the Cold War, we not only plunged into the Middle East to remake it in our image, we issued war guarantees
to every ex-member state of the Warsaw Pact, and threatened Russia with war if she ever intervened again in the Baltic Republics.
No Cold War president would have dreamed of issuing such an in-your-face challenge to a great nuclear power like Russia. If Putin's
Russia does not become the pacifist nation it has never been, these guarantees will one day be called. And America will either back
down -- or face a nuclear confrontation. Why would we risk something like this?
Consider this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants, not one
of whom ever built a great nation. Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits since
Bush I. Our cities have been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers' wages have stagnated. The economic independence
Hamilton sought and Republican presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history.
But the greatest risk we are taking, based on utopianism, is the annual importation of well over a million legal and illegal immigrants,
many from the failed states of the Third World, in the belief we can create a united, peaceful and harmonious land of 400 million,
composed of every race, religion, ethnicity, tribe, creed, culture and language on earth.
Where is the historic evidence for the success of this experiment, the failure of which could mean the end of America as one nation
and one people?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and
Divided America Forever."
Pat Buchanan does not understand neoliberalism well and mixes apples with oranges, but the key idea expressed here stands:
" Consider this crazed ideology of free trade globalism with its roots in the scribblings of 19th-century idiot savants,
not one of whom ever built a great nation. Adhering religiously to free trade dogma, we have run up $12 trillion in trade deficits
since Bush I. Our cities have been gutted by the loss of plants and factories. Workers' wages have stagnated. The economic
independence Hamilton sought and Republican presidents from Lincoln to McKinley achieved is history."
The truth is that now Trump does not represent "Trumpism" -- the movement that he created which includes the following:
– rejection of neoliberal globalization;
– rejection of unrestricted immigration;
– fight against suppression of wages by multinationals via cheap imported labor;
– fight against the elimination of meaningful, well-paying jobs via outsourcing and offshoring of manufacturing;
– rejection of wars for enlargement and sustaining of neoliberal empire, especially NATO role as global policemen and wars for
Washington client Israel in the Middle East;
– détente with Russia;
– more pragmatic relations with Israel and suppression of Israeli agents of influence;
– revision of relations with China and addressing the problem of trade deficit.
– rejection of total surveillance on all citizens;
– the cut of military expenses to one third or less of the current level and concentrating on revival on national infrastructure,
education, and science.
– abandonment of maintenance of the "sole superpower" status and global neoliberal empire for more practical and less costly "semi-isolationist"
foreign policy; closing of unnecessary foreign military bases and cutting aid to the current clients.
Of course, the notion of "Trumpism" is fuzzy and different people might include some additional issues and disagree with some
listed here, but the core probably remains.
Of course, Trump is under relentless attack (coup d'état or, more precisely, a color revolution) of neoliberal fifth column,
which includes Clinton gang, fifth column elements within his administration (Rosenstein, etc) as well from remnants of Obama
administration (Brennan, Comey, Clapper) and associated elements within corresponding intelligence agencies. He probably was forced
into some compromises just to survive. He also has members of the neoliberal fifth column within his family (Ivanka and Kushner).
So the movement now is in deep need of a new leader.
That's a good summary of what the public voted for and didn't get.
And whether Trump has sold out, or was blackmailed or was a cynical manipulative liar for the beginning is really irrelevant.
The fact is that he is not doing it – so he is just blocking the way.
At some point the US public are going to have to forget about their "representatives" (Trump and Congress and the rest of
them) and get out onto the street to make themselves heard. The population of the US is 323 million people and if just 1/2
of 1% (1,6 million) of them decided to visit Congress directly the US administration might get the message.
pyrrhus, March 3, 2018 at 2:15 am GMT
@anon
Finally, Pat understands that the American [Neoliberal] Empire and habit of intervention all over the world is a disaster.
The idea of success at any cost, trampling on other people, has always been
popular in the United States. Little or nothing ethical types like Milken and Jordan Belfort
have had many admirers in the United States.
"... In addition, financial capital leads to inequality, and that inequality, as you've seen in the United States and in Europe and many other places, it increases. And suddenly, not suddenly, but bit by bit, people begin to realize that they aren't getting their share and that means that the government, to protect capitalism, must use force to maintain the order of financial capital. And I think Trump is the fulfillment of that, and I think there are other examples too which I can go into. So, basically, my argument is that with the rise of finance and its unproductive activities, you've got the decline in living standards of the vast majority, and in order to maintain order in such a system where people no longer think that they're sort of getting their share, and so justice doesn't become, a just distribution doesn't become the reason why people support this system, increasingly it has to be done through force. ..."
"... I think that as The Real News has pointed out, that many of Trump's policies appear just to be more extreme versions of things that George Bush did, and in some cases not that much different from what Barack Obama did. ..."
"... The difference with Trump is, he has complete contempt for all of those constraints. That is, he is an authoritarian. I don't think he's a fascist, not yet, but he is an authoritarian. He does not accept that there are constraints which he should respect. There are constraints which bother him, and he wants to get rid of them, and he actually takes steps to do so. ..."
"... Erdoğan so infamously said? "Democracy is like a train. You take it to where you want to go and then you get off." No. Progressive view is that democracy is what it's all about. Democracy is the way that we build the present and we build a future. ..."
"... I think that the struggle in the United States is extremely difficult because of the role of the big money and the media, which you know more about than I do. But it is a struggle which we have to keep at, and we have to be optimistic about it. It's a good bit easier over here, but as we saw, and you reported, during the last presidential election, a progressive came very close to being President of the United States. That, I don't think was a one-off event, not to be repeated. I think it lays the basis for hope in the future. ..."
"... The democratic nation-state basically operates like a criminal cartel, forcing honest citizens to surrender large portions of their wealth to pay for stuff like roads and hospitals and schools. ..."
"... Any hierarchic system will be exploited by intelligent sociopaths. Systems will not save us. ..."
"... What I gleaned from my quick Wikiread was the apparent pattern of economic inequality causing the masses to huddle in fear & loathing to one corner – desperation, and then some clever autocrat subverts the energy from their F&L into political power by demonizing various minorities and other non-causal perps. ..."
"... Like nearly every past fascism emergence in history, US Trumpismo is capitalizing on inequality, and fear & loathing (his capital if you will) to seize power. That brings us to Today – to Trump, and an era (brief I hope) of US flirtation with fascism. Thank God Trump is crippled by a narcissism that fuels F&L within his own regime. Otherwise, I might be joining a survivalist group or something. :-) ..."
Yves here. This Real News Network interview with professor emeritus John Weeks discussed how economic ideology has weakened or
eliminated public accountability of institutions like the Fed and promote neo[neo]liberal policies that undermine democracy.
SHARMINI PERIES: It's The Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore. The concept of the [neo]liberal democracy
is generally based on capitalistic markets along with respect for individual freedoms and human rights and equality in the face of
the law. The rise of financial capital and its efforts to deregulate financial markets, however, raises the question whether [neo]liberal
democracy is a sustainable form of government. Sooner or later, democratic institutions make way for the interests of large capital
to supersede.
Political economist John Weeks recently gave this year's David Gordon Memorial Lecture at the meeting of the American Economic
Association in Philadelphia where he addressed these issues with a talk titled, Free Markets and the Decline of Democracy. Joining
us now is John Weeks. He joins us from London to discuss the issues raised in his lecture. You can find a link to this lecture just
below the player, and John is, as you know, Professor Emeritus of the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies
and author of Economics of the 1%: How Mainstream Economics Serves the Rich, Obscures Reality and Distorts Policy. John, good to
have you back on The Real News.
JOHN WEEKS: Thank you very much for having me.
SHARMINI PERIES: John, let me start with your talk. Your talk describes a struggle between efforts to create a democratic
control over the economy and the interest of capital, which seeks to subjugate government to the interest, its own interest. In your
assessment, it looks like this is a losing battle for democracy. Explain this further.
JOHN WEEKS: Yeah, so I think that Marx in Capital, in the first volume of Capital, refers to a concept called bourgeois
right, by which he meant that, you said it in the introduction, that in a capitalist society there is a form of equality that mimics
the relationship of exchange. Every commodity looks equal in exchange and there is a system of ownership that you might say is the
shadow of that. I think more important, in the early stages of development of capitalism, of development of factories, that those
institutions or those factories prompted the growth of trade unions and workers' struggles in general. Those workers' struggles were
key to the development, or further development of democracy, freedom of speech, a whole range of rights, the right to vote.
However, with the development of finance capital, you've got quite a different dynamic within the capitalist system. Let me say,
I don't want to romanticize the early period of capitalism, but you did have struggles, mass struggles for rights. Finance capital
produces nothing productive, it doesn't do anything productive. So, what finance capital does basically is it redistributes the income,
the wealth, the, what Marx would call the surplus value, from other sectors of society to itself. And it employs relatively few people,
so that dynamic of the capital, industrial capital, generating its antithesis So, that a labor movement doesn't occur under financial
capital.
In addition, financial capital leads to inequality, and that inequality, as you've seen in the United States and in Europe
and many other places, it increases. And suddenly, not suddenly, but bit by bit, people begin to realize that they aren't getting
their share and that means that the government, to protect capitalism, must use force to maintain the order of financial capital.
And I think Trump is the fulfillment of that, and I think there are other examples too which I can go into. So, basically, my argument
is that with the rise of finance and its unproductive activities, you've got the decline in living standards of the vast majority,
and in order to maintain order in such a system where people no longer think that they're sort of getting their share, and so justice
doesn't become, a just distribution doesn't become the reason why people support this system, increasingly it has to be done through
force.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right, John. Before we get further into the relationship between neo[neo]liberalism and democracy, give
us a brief summary of what you mean by neo[neo]liberalism. You say that it's not really about deregulation, as most people usually conceive
of it. If that's not what it's about, what is it, then?
JOHN WEEKS: I think that if you think about the movements in the United States, and as much as I can, I will take examples
from the United States because most of your listeners will be familiar with those, beginning in the early part of the twentieth century,
in the United States you have reform movements, the breaking up of the large monopolies, tobacco monopoly, a whole range of Standard
Oil, all of that. And then of course under Roosevelt you began to get the regulation of capital in the interests of the majority,
much of that driven by Roosevelt's trade union support. So, that was moving from a system where capital was relatively unregulated
to where it was being regulated in the interests of the vast majority. I also would say, though, I won't go into detail, to a certain
extent it was regulated in the interest of capital itself to moderate competition and therefore, I'd say, ensure a relatively tranquil
market environment.
Neo[neo]liberalism involves not the deregulation of the capitalist system, but the reregulation of it in the interest of capital. So,
it involves moving from a system in which capital is regulated in the interests of stability and the many to regulation in a way
that enhances capital. These regulations, to get specific about them, restrictions on trade unions, as you, on Real News, a number
of people have talked about this. The United States now have many restrictions on the organizing of trade unions which were not present
50 or 60 years ago, making it harder to have a mass movement of labor against capital, restrictions on the right to demonstrate,
a whole range of things. Then within capital itself, the regulations on the movement of capital that facilitate speculation in international
markets. We have a capitalism in which the form of regulation is shifted from the regulation of capital in the interest of labor
to regulation of capital in the interest of capital.
SHARMINI PERIES: John, give us a brief summary of the ways in which neo[neo]liberalism undermines democracy.
JOHN WEEKS: Well, I think that there are many examples, but I'm going to focus on economic policy. For an obvious case
is the role of the Central Bank, in the case of the United States' Federal Reserve System, in which reducing its accountability to
the public, one way you can do that is by assigning goals to it, such as fighting inflation, which then override other goals. Originally,
the Federal Reserve System, its charter, or I'll say its terms of reference, if you want me to use that phrase, included full employment
and a stable economy. Those have been overridden in more recent legislation, which puts a great emphasis on the control of inflation.
Control of inflation basically means maintaining an economy at a relatively high level of unemployment or part-time employment, or
flexible employment, where people have relatively few rights at work. And that the Central Bank becomes a vehicle for enforcing a
neo[neo]liberal economic policy.
Second of all, probably most of your viewers will not remember the days when we had fixed exchange rates. We had a world of fixed
exchange rates in those days that represented the policy, which government could use to affect its trade and also affect its domestic
policy. There have been deregulation of that. We now have floating exchange rates. That takes away a tool, an instrument of economic
policy. And in fiscal policy, there the, here it's more ideology than laws, though there are also laws. There's a law requiring that
the government balance its budget, but more important than that, the introduction into the public consciousness, I'd say grinding
into the public consciousness, the idea that deficits are a bad thing, government debt is a bad thing, and that's a completely neo[neo]liberal
ideology.
In summary, one way that the democracy has been undermined is to take away economic policy from the public realm and move it to
the realm of experts. So, we have certain allegedly expert guidelines that we have to follow. Inflation should be low. We should
not run deficits. The national debt should be small. These are things that are just made up ideologically. There is no technical
basis to them. And so, in doing that, you might say, the term I like to use is, you decommission the democratic process and economic
policy.
SHARMINI PERIES: John, speaking of ideology, in your talk you refer to the challenge that fascism posed or poses to neo[neo]liberal
democracies. Now, it is interesting when you take Europe into consideration and National Socialist in Germany, for example, appeal
mostly to the working class, as does contemporary far-right leaders in Poland and Hungary, that they support more explicit neo[neo]liberal
agendas. Why would people support a neo[neo]liberal agenda that exasperate inequalities and harm public services that they depend on,
including jobs?
JOHN WEEKS: I think that to a great extent it is country-specific, but I can make generalizations. First of all, I'm talking
about Europe, because you raised a case in some European countries, and then I'll make some comments about the United States and
Trump, if you want me to. I think in Europe, a combination of three things resulted in the rise of fascism and authoritarian movements
which are verging on fascism. One is that the European integration project, which let me say that I have supported, and I would still
prefer Britain not to leave the European Union, but nevertheless, the European Union integration project has been a project run by
elites.
It has not been a bottom-up process. It has been a process very much run by elite politicians, in which they get together in closed
door, and they make policies which they subsequently announce, and many of the decisions they come to being extremely, the meaning
of them being extremely opaque. So, therefore, you have the development in Europe of the European Union which, not from the bottom
up, but very much from the top down. You might suggest from the top, but I'm not sure how much goes down. That's one.
The second key factor, I would say, for about 20 years in European integration, it was relatively benign elitism because it was social
democratic, it had the support of the working class, or the trade unions, at any rate. Then, increasingly, it began to become neo[neo]liberal.
So, you have an elite project which was turning into a neo[neo]liberal project. Specifically, what I mean by neo[neo]liberal is where they're
generating flexibility rules for the labor market, austerity policies, bank, balanced budgets, low inflation, the things I was talking
about before.
Then the third element, toxic, the most toxic of them, but the other, they're volatile, is the legacy of fascism in Europe. Every
European country, with the exception of Britain, had a substantial fascist movement in the 1920s and 1930s. I can go into why Britain
didn't sometime. It had to do with the particular class struggle of the, I mean, class structure of Britain. Poland, ironically enough,
though, is one of them. It was overrun by the Nazis, and occupied, and incorporated into the German Reich. Ironically, it had a very
right-wing government with a lot of sympathies towards fascism when it was invaded in the late summer of 1939.
France had a strong fascist movement. Of course, Italy had a fascist government, and Hungary, where now you have a right-wing
government, a very strong fascist movement. The incorporation of these countries into the Soviet sphere of influence, or the empire,
as it were, did not destroy that fascism. It certainly suppressed it, but it didn't destroy it. So, as soon as the European project
began to transform into a neo[neo]liberal project, and that gathered strength in the early 1990s, I mean, the neo[neo]liberal aspect of the
European Union gathered strength in the early 1990s, exactly when you were getting the "liberation" of many countries from Soviet
rule. And so, when you put those together, it led to, It was a rise of fascism waiting to happen and now it is happening.
SHARMINI PERIES: John, earlier, you said you'll factor in Trump. How does Trump fit into this phenomena?
JOHN WEEKS: I think that as The Real News has pointed out, that many of Trump's policies appear just to be more extreme
versions of things that George Bush did, and in some cases not that much different from what Barack Obama did. Now, though I
wouldn't go too deeply into that, I think that that is the most serious offenses by Obama that have been carried on by Trump have
to do with the use of drones and the military. But at any rate, but there's a big difference from Trump. For the most part, the previous
Republican presidents, and Democratic presidents, accepted the framework of, the formal framework of [neo]liberal democracy in the United
States. That is, formally accepted the constraints imposed by the Constitution.
Now, of course, they probably didn't do it out of the goodness of their heart. They did it because they saw that the things that
they wanted to achieve, the neo[neo]liberal goals that they wanted to achieve were perfectly consistent with the Constitution's framework
and guarantees of rights and so on, that most of those rights are guaranteed in a way that's so weak that you didn't have to repeal
the first 10 Amendments of the Constitution in order to have repressive policies.
The difference with Trump is, he has complete contempt for all of those constraints. That is, he is an authoritarian. I don't
think he's a fascist, not yet, but he is an authoritarian. He does not accept that there are constraints which he should respect.
There are constraints which bother him, and he wants to get rid of them, and he actually takes steps to do so. What you have
in Trump, I think, is a sea change. You have a, we've had right-wing presidents before, certainly. What the difference with Trump
is, he is a right-wing president that sees no reason to respect the institutions of democratic government, or even, you might say,
the institution of representative government. I won't even use a term as strong as "democratic." That lays the basis for an explicitly
authoritarian United States, and I'd say that we're beginning to see the vehicle by which this will occur, the restriction on voting
rights. Of course, that was going on before Trump, it does in a more aggressive way. I think the, soon, we will have a Supreme Court
that will be quite lenient with his tendency towards authoritarian rule.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right, John. Let's end this segment with what can be done. I mean, what must be done to prevent neo[neo]liberal
interests from undermining democracy? And who do you believe is leading the struggle for democracy now, and what is the right strategy
that people should be fighting for?
JOHN WEEKS: Well, one thing, I think, where I'd begin is that I think progressives, as The Real News represents, and Bernie
Sanders, and all the people that support him, and Jeremy Corbyn over here, I'll come back to talk about a bit about Jeremy. We must
be explicit that we view democracy, by which we mean the participation of people at the grassroots, their participation in the government,
we view that as a goal. It's not merely a technique, or a tool which, what was it that Erdoğan so infamously said? "Democracy
is like a train. You take it to where you want to go and then you get off." No. Progressive view is that democracy is what it's all
about. Democracy is the way that we build the present and we build a future.
I'm quite fortunate in that I live in perhaps the only large country in the world where there's imminent possibility of a progressive,
left-wing, anti-authoritarian government. I think that is the monumental importance of Jeremy Corbyn and his second-in-command, John
McDonnell, and others like Emily Thornberry, who is the Foreign Secretary. These people are committed to democracy. In the United
States, Bernie Sanders is committed to a democracy, and a lot of other people are too, Elizabeth Warren. So, I think that the
struggle in the United States is extremely difficult because of the role of the big money and the media, which you know more about
than I do. But it is a struggle which we have to keep at, and we have to be optimistic about it. It's a good bit easier over here,
but as we saw, and you reported, during the last presidential election, a progressive came very close to being President of the United
States. That, I don't think was a one-off event, not to be repeated. I think it lays the basis for hope in the future.
"A lot of money" in those days- Some say JI "bought land" with the shekels. An early form of asset swap? A precursor to current
financialist activities?
Good article. If it were any bleaker, I'd suspect Chris Hedges having a hand in writing it.
The democratic nation-state basically operates like a criminal cartel, forcing honest citizens to surrender large portions
of their wealth to pay for stuff like roads and hospitals and schools.
There it is, the Gorgon Thiel, surrounded by terror and rout.
"Altman felt that OpenAI's mission was to babysit its wunderkind until it was ready to be adopted by the world. He'd been reading
James Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention for guidance in managing the transition. 'We're planning a way to allow
wide swaths of the world to elect representatives to a new governance board,' he said."
I was having trouble choosing which of the passages in this article to provide a mad quote from. Some other choices were
Altman's going to work with the Department of Defense, then help defend the world from them.
Or:
OpenAI's going to take over from humans, but don't worry because they're going to make it (somehow) so OpenAI can only terminate
bad people. Before releasing it to the world.
Or:
Altman says 'add a 0 to whatever you're doing but never more than that.'
But if this sort of wisdom (somehow) doesn't work out well for everybody and the world collapses, he's flying with Peter Thiel
in the private jet to the New Zealand's south island to wait out the Zombie Apocalypse on a converted sheep farm. (Before returning
to the Valley work with more startups?)
I think it's revealing that the only type of democracy discussed, in spite of the title, is "[neo]liberal democracy", which the
host describes as "based on capitalistic markets along with respect for individual freedoms and human rights and equality in the
face of the law."
I've always argued that [neo]liberal democracy is a contradiction in terms, and you can see why from that quotation. [neo]liberalism (leaving
aside special uses of the term in the US) is about individuals exercising their personal economic freedom and personal
autonomy as much as they can, with as little control by government as possible.
But given massive imbalances in economic power, the influence
of media-backed single issue campaigns and the growth of professional political parties, policy is decided by the interventions
of powerful and well-organised groups, without ordinary people being consulted. At the end, Weeks does start to talk of grassroots
participation, but seems to have no more in mind than a campaign to get people to vote for Sanders in 2020, which hardly addresses
the problem. The answer, if there is one, is a system of direct democracy, involving referendums and popular assemblies chosen
at random.
This has been much talked about, but since you would have the entire political class against you, it's not going to
happen. In the meantime, we are stuck with [neo]liberal democracy, whose contradictions, I'm afraid are becoming ever more obvious.
"Contradictions?" One question for me at least would be whether the features and motions of the current regime are best characterized
as "contradictions." If so, to what? And implicit in the use of the word is some kind of resolution, via actual class conflict
or something, leading to "better" or at least "different." All I see from my front porch is more of the same, and worse. "The
Matrix" in that myth gave some comforting illusions to the mopery. I think the political economy/collapsed planet portrayed in
"Soylent Green" is a lot closer to the likely endpoints.
At least in the movie fable, the C-Suite-er of the Soylent Corp. as the lede in the film, was sickened of what he was helping
to maintain, and bethought himself to blow his tiny little personal whistle that nobody would really hear, and got axed for his
disloyalty to the ruling collective. I doubt the ranks of corporatists of MonsantoDuPont and LockheedMartin and the rest include
any significant numbers of folks sickened by "the contradictions" that get them their perks and bennies and power (as long as
they color inside the lines.)
I hope I am way off the mark, but within that genre & in terms of where we could be heading, the film " Snowpiercer " sums
it up best for me- a dystopian world society illustrated through the passengers on one long train.
Thanks for the Real News Network for covering issues that never see the light of day on the corporate media and never mentioned
by the Rachel Maddow's of the "news" shows.
I actually like the term and find it useful, insofar as it describes an ideology -- as oposed a real political-economic arrangement.
The presence of "free markets" may not be a characteristic of the neo[neo]liberal phase, but the belief in them sure is.
(Which is not to say there aren't people who don't believe in free markets but do invoke them rhetorically for
other ends. That's a feature of many if not most successful ideologies.)
' Originally, the Federal Reserve charter included full employment and a stable economy. Those have been overridden in more
recent legislation, which puts a great emphasis on the control of inflation.
Eh, this is fractured history. The Fed was set up in 1913 as a lender of last resort -- a discounter of government and private
bills.
In late 1978 Jimmy Carter signed the Humphrey Hawkins Act instructing the Fed to pursue three goals: stable prices, maximum
employment, and moderate long-term interest rates, though the latter is rarely mentioned now and the Fed is widely viewed as having
a dual mandate.
The Fed's two percent inflation target it simply adopted at its own initiative -- it's not enshrined in no Perpetual Inflation
Act.
' We had a world of fixed exchange rates which government could use to affect its trade and also affect its domestic policy.
We now have floating exchange rates. That takes away a tool. '
LOL! This is totally inverted and flat wrong. The Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system prevented radical monetary experiments
such as QE which would have broken the peg. Nixon unilaterally suspended fixed exchange rates in 1971 because he was unwilling
to take the political hit of formally devaluing the dollar (or even more unlikely, sweating out Vietnam War inflation with falling
prices to maintain the peg).
Floating rates are a new and potentially lethal monetary tool which have produced a number of sad examples of "governments
gone wild" with radical monetary experiments and currency swings. Bad boys Japan & Switzerland come readily to mind.
To render history accurately requires getting hands dirty with dusty old books. Icky, I know. :-(
Yes but globalisation meant that all central banks and finance ministers had to act concertedly as in G-20 and similar meetings.
While we may talk of floating exchange rates, each country fixes its interest rate to maintain parity with the others. Isn't that
so?
I think that the key piece of info is that the Federal Reserve was created on December 23rd, 1913. That sounds like that it
was slipped in the legislative back door when everybody was going away for the Christmas holidays.
===== quote =====
Second of all, probably most of your viewers will not remember the days when we had fixed exchange rates. We had a world of fixed
exchange rates in those days that represented the policy, which government could use to affect its trade and also affect its domestic
policy. There have been deregulation of that. We now have floating exchange rates. That takes away a tool, an instrument of economic
policy. And in fiscal policy, there the, here it's more ideology than laws, though there are also laws. There's a law requiring
that the government balance its budget, but more important than that, the introduction into the public consciousness, I'd say
grinding into the public consciousness, the idea that deficits are a bad thing, government debt is a bad thing, and that's a completely
neo[neo]liberal ideology.
===== /quote =====
This makes absolutely no sense and seems to have the case exactly backward. Our federal government has no rule that the budget
must be balanced. Fixed exchange rates were not a tool that could be used to affect trade and domestic policy in a good way.
I enjoyed John Weeks' point of view. He's the first person I've read who refers to the usefulness of a fixed exchange rate.
Useful for a sovereign government with a social spending agenda. We have always been a sovereign government with a military agenda
which is at odds with a social agenda.
Guns and butter are a dangerous combination if you are dedicated to at least maintaining
the illusion of a "strong dollar." That's basically what Nixon finessed. John Conally told him not to worry, we could go off the
gold standard and it wasn't our problem since we were the reserve currency – it was everybody else's problem and we promptly exported
our inflation all around the world. And now it has come home to roost because it was fudging and it couldn't last forever.
Much
better to concede to some fix for the currency and maintain the sovereign power to devalue the dollar as necessary to maintain
proper social spending. I don't understand why sovereign governments cannot see that a deficit is just the mirror image of a healthy
social economy (Stephanie Kelton).
And to that end "fix" an exchange rate that maintains a reasonable purchasing power of the
currency by pegging it to the long term health of the economy. What we do now is peg the dollar to a "basket of goods and services"-
Ben Bernanke. That "basket" is effectively "the market" and has very little to do with good social policy.
There's no reason we
can't dispense with the market and simply fiat the value of our currency based on the social return estimated for our social investments.
Etc. Keeping the dollar stubbornly strong is just tyranny favoring those few who benefit from extreme inequality.
" Democracy is not under stress – it's under aggressive attack, as unconstrained financial greed overrides public accountability
."
I request a lessatorium* on the term 'democracy', because there aren't any democracies. Rather than redefine the term, why
not use a more accurate one, like 'plutocracy', or 'corporatocracy'.
-- -- -- -
* It's like a moratorium, you just do less of it.
I had not given much thought to "Fascist" until the term was challenged as a synonym for "bully." So, I started reading Wikipedia's
take on Fascismo. What I discovered was the foremost, my USA education did not teach jack s -- about Fascism – and I went to elite
high school in libr'l Chicago.
Is Fascism right or left? Does it matter? What goes around comes around.
What I gleaned from my quick Wikiread was the apparent pattern of economic inequality causing the masses to huddle in fear
& loathing to one corner – desperation, and then some clever autocrat subverts the energy from their F&L into political power
by demonizing various minorities and other non-causal perps.
Like nearly every past fascism emergence in history, US Trumpismo is capitalizing on inequality, and fear & loathing (his capital
if you will) to seize power. That brings us to Today – to Trump, and an era (brief I hope) of US flirtation with fascism. Thank
God Trump is crippled by a narcissism that fuels F&L within his own regime. Otherwise, I might be joining a survivalist group
or something. :-)
Neoliberalism involves not the deregulation of the capitalist system, but the reregulation of it in the interest of capital.
So, it involves moving from a system in which capital is regulated in the interests of stability and the many to regulation in
a way that enhances capital.
Prominent politicians in the US and UK have spent their entire political careers representing neoliberalism's agenda at the
expense of representing the voters' issues. The voters are tired of the conservative and [neo]liberal political establishments' focus
on neoliberal policy. This is also true in Germany as well France and Italy. The West's current political establishments see the
way forward as "staying the neoliberal course." Voters are saying "change course." See:
'German Politics Enters an Era of Instability' – Der Speigel
"... By Servaas Storm, Professor, Department of Economics, Faculty TPM, Delft University of Technology and co-author, with C.W. M. Naastepad, of Macroeconomics Beyond the NAIRU (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), which has just won the Myrdal Prize of the European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Banks have long had undue influence in society. But with the rapid expansion of a financial sector that transforms all debts and assets into tradable commodities, we are faced with something far worse: financial markets with an only abstract, inflated, and destabilizing relationship with the real economy. To prevent another crisis, finance must be domesticated and turned into a useful servant of society. ..."
Posted on
February 14, 2018 by Yves Smith Yves here. Get a cup of
coffee. This is an important, one-stop treatment of how financialization has harmed the real
economy and increased inequality.
By Servaas Storm, Professor, Department of Economics, Faculty TPM, Delft University of
Technology and co-author, with C.W. M. Naastepad, of Macroeconomics
Beyond the NAIRU (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), which has just won the Myrdal
Prize of the European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy. Originally published at
the Institute for New Economic Thinking website
Banks have long had undue influence in society. But with the rapid expansion of a
financial sector that transforms all debts and assets into tradable commodities, we are faced
with something far worse: financial markets with an only abstract, inflated, and destabilizing
relationship with the real economy. To prevent another crisis, finance must be domesticated and
turned into a useful servant of society.
The Financialization of Everything
Ours is, without a doubt, the age of finance -- of the supremacy of financial actors,
institutions, markets, and motives in the global capitalist economy. Working people in the
advanced economies, for instance, increasingly have their (pension) savings invested in mutual
funds and stock markets, while their mortgages and other debts are turned into securities and
sold to global financial investors (Krippner 2011; Epstein 2018). At the same time, the
'under-banked' poor in the developing world have become entangled, or if one wishes,
'financially included', in the 'web' of global finance through their growing reliance on
micro-loans, micro-insurance and M-Pesa-like 'correspondent banking' (Keucheyan 2018; Mader
2018). More generally, individual citizens everywhere are invited to "live by finance", in
Martin's (2002, p. 17) evocative words, that is: to organize their daily lives around 'investor
logic', active individual risk management, and involvement in global financial markets.
Citizenship and rights are being re-conceptualized in terms of universal access to 'safe' and
affordable financial products (Kear 2012) -- redefining Descartes' philosophical proof of
existence as: 'I am indebted, therefore I am' (Graeber 2011). Financial markets are opening
'new enclosures' everywhere, deeply penetrating social space -- as in the case of so-called
'viaticals', the third-party purchase of the rights to future payoffs of life insurance
contracts from the terminally ill (Quinn 2008); or of 'health care bonds' issued by insurance
companies to fund health-care interventions; the payoff to private investors in these bonds
depends on the cost-savings arising from the health-care intervention for the insurers. Or what
to think of 'humanitarian impact bonds' used to profitably finance physical rehabilitation
services in countries affected by violence and conflict (Lavinas 2018); this latter instrument
was created in 2017 by the International Red Cross in cooperation with insurer Munich Re and
Bank Lombard Odier.
Conglomerate corporate entities, which used to provide long-term employment and stable
retirement benefits, were broken up under pressure of financial markets and replaced by
disaggregated global commodity-chain structures (Wade 2018), operating according to the
principles of 'shareholder value maximization' (Lazonick 2014) -- with the result that today
real decision-making power is often to be found no longer in corporate boardrooms, but in
global financial markets. As a result, accumulation -- real capital formation which increases
overall economic output -- has slowed down in the U.S., the E.U. and India, as profit-owners,
looking for the highest returns, reallocated their investments to more profitable financial
markets (Jayadev, Mason and Schröder 2018).
An overabundance of (cash) finance is used primarily to fund a proliferation of short-term,
high-risk (potentially high-return) investments in newly developed financial instruments, such
as derivatives -- Warren Buffet's 'financial weapons of mass destruction' that blew up the
global financial system in 2007-8. Financial actors (ranging from banks, bond investors, and
pension funds to big insurers and speculative hedge funds) have taken much bigger roles on much
larger geographic scales in markets of items essential to development such as food (Clapp and
Isakson 2018), primary commodities, health care (insurance), education, and energy. These same
actors hunt the globe for 'passive' unearthed assets which they can re-use as collateral for
various purposes in the 'shadow banking system' -- the complex global chains of credit,
liquidity and leverage with no systemic regulatory oversight that has become as large as the
regulated 'normal' banking system (Pozsar and Singh 2011; Gabor 2018) and enjoys implicit state
guarantees (Kane 2013, 2015).
Pressed by the international financial institutions and their own elites, states around the
world have embraced finance-friendly policies which included reducing cross-border capital
controls, promoting liquid domestic stock markets, reducing the taxation of wealth and capital
gains, and rendering their central banks independent from political oversight (Bortz and
Kaltenbrunner 2018; Wade 2018; Chandrasekhar and Ghosh 2018). What is most distinctive about
the present era of finance, however, is the shift in financial intermediation from banks and
other institutions to financial markets -- a shift from the 'visible hand' of
(often-times relationship) regulated banking to the axiomatic 'invisible hand' of supposedly
anonymous, self-regulating, financial markets. This displacement of financial institutions by
financial markets has had a pervasive influence on the motivations, choices and decisions made
by households, firms and states as well as fundamental quantitative impacts on growth,
inequality and poverty -- far-reaching consequences which we are only beginning to
understand.
Setting the Stage
Joseph Alois Schumpeter (1934, p. 74), the Austrian-American theorist of capitalist
development and its eventual demise, called the banker "the ephor of the exchange economy"
[2] -- someone who by creating
credit ( ex nihilo ) to finance new investments and innovation, "makes possible the
carrying out of new combinations, authorizes people, in the name of society as it were, to form
them." This same banker has, in Schumpeter's vision, "either replaced private capitalists or
become their agent; he has himself become the capitalist par excellence. He stands between
those who wish to form new combinations and the possessors of productive means." This way, the
banker becomes "essentially a phenomenon of development", as Schumpeter (1934, p. 74) argued --
fostering the process of accumulation and directing the pace and nature of economic growth and
technological progress (Festré and Nasica 2009; Mazzucato and Wray 2015). Alexander
Gerschenkron (1968) concurred, comparing the importance of investment banks in 19th-century
Germany's industrialization drive to that of the steam engine in Britain's Industrial
Revolution:
" the German investment banks -- a powerful invention, comparable in its economic effects
to that of the steam engine -- were in their capital-supplying functions a substitute for the
insufficiency of the previously created wealth willingly placed at the disposal of
entrepreneurs. [ ] From their central vantage point of control, the banks participated
actively in shaping the major [ ] decisions of individual enterprises. It was they who very
often mapped out a firm's path of growth, conceived farsighted plans, decided on major
technological and locational innovations, and arranged for mergers and capital
increases."
Schumpeter and Gerschenkron celebrated the developmental role played by bank-based
financial systems, in which banks form long-run (often personal) relationships with firms, have
insider knowledge and (as they are large creditors) are in a position to exert strategic
pressure on firms, impose market rationality on their decisions and prioritize the repayment of
their debts. However, what Schumpeter left unmentioned is that the absolute power of the
'ephors' could terribly fail: When the wrong people were elected to the 'ephorate', their
leadership and guidance did ruin the Spartan state. [3] Likewise, the --
personalized relationship-based -- banking system could ruin the development process: it could
fatally weaken the corporate governance of firms, because bank managers would be more reluctant
to bankrupt firms with which they have had long-term ties, and lead to cronyism and corruption,
as it is relatively easy for bank insiders to exploit other creditors or taxpayers (Levine
2005). Schumpeter's relationship-banker may be fallible, weak (when it comes to disciplining
firms), prone to mistakes and errors of judgment and not necessarily immune to corruptible
influences -- in short: there are reasons to believe that a bank-based financial system is
inferior to an alternative, market-based, financial system (Levine 2005; Demirgüc-Kunt,
Feyen and Levine 2012).
This view of the superiority of a 'market-based' financial system rests on Friedrich von
Hayek's grotesque epistemological claim that 'the market' is an omniscient way of knowing, one
that radically exceeds the capacity of any individual mind or even the state. For Hayek, "the
market constitutes the only legitimate form of knowledge, next to which all other modes of
reflection are partial, in both senses of the word: they comprehend only a fragment of a whole
and they plead on behalf of a special interest. Individually, our values are personal ones, or
mere opinions; collectively, the market converts them into prices, or objective facts" (Metcalf
2017). After his 'sudden illumination' in 1936 that the market is the best possible and only
legitimate form of social organisation, Hayek had to find an answer to the dilemma of how to
reformulate the political and the social in a way compatible with the 'rationality' of the
(unregulated) market economy. Hayek's answer was that the 'market' should be applied to all
domains of life. Homo œconomicus -- the narrowly self-interested subject who,
according to Foucault (2008, pp. 270-271), "is eminently governable ." as he/she "accepts
reality and responds systematically to systematic modifications artificially introduced into
the environment -- had to be universalized. This, in turn, could be achieved by the
financialization of 'everything in everyday life', because financial logic and constraints
would help to impose 'market discipline and rationality' on economic decision-makers. After
all, borrowers compete with another for funds -- and it is commercial (profit-oriented) banks
and financial institutions which do the screening and selection of who gets funded.
Hayek proved to be extremely successful in hiding his reactionary political agenda behind
the pretense of scientific neutrality -- by elevating the verdict of the market to the status
of a natural fact, while putting any value that cannot be expressed as a price "on an equally
unsure footing, as nothing more than opinion, preference, folklore or superstition" (Metcalf
2017). Hayek's impact on economics was transformative, as can be seen from how Lawrence Summers
sums up 'Hayek's legacy':
"What's the single most important thing to learn from an economics course today? What I
tried to leave my students with is the view that the invisible hand is more powerful than the
[un]hidden hand. Things will happen in well-organized efforts without direction, controls,
plans. That's the consensus among economists. That's the Hayek legacy." (quoted in Yergin and
Stanislaw (1998, pp. 150–51))
This Hayekian legacy underwrites, and quietly promotes, neoliberal narratives and discourses
which advocate that authority -- even sovereignty -- be conceded to (in our case: financial)
'markets' which act as an 'impartial and transparent judge', collecting and processing
information relevant to economic decision-making and coordinating these decisions, and as a
'guardian', impartially imposing 'market discipline and market rationality' on economic
decision-makers -- thus bringing about not just 'socially efficient outcomes' but social
stability as well. This way, financialization constitutes progress -- bringing "the advantages
enjoyed by the clients of Wall Street to the customers of Wal-Mart", as Nobel-Prize winning
financial economist Robert Shiller (2003, p. x) writes. "We need to extend finance beyond our
major financial capitals to the rest of the world. We need to extend the domain of finance
beyond that of physical capital to human capital, and to cover the risks that really matter in
our lives. Fortunately, the principles of financial management can now be expanded to include
society as a whole."
Attentive readers might argue that faith in the social efficiency of financial markets has
waned -- after all, Hayek's grand epistemological claim was falsified, in a completely
unambiguous manner, by the Great Financial Crisis of 2007-8 which brought the world economy to
the brink of a systemic meltdown. Even staunch believers in the (social) efficiency of
self-regulating financial markets, including most notably former Federal Reserve chair Alan
Greenspan, had to admit a fundamental 'flaw in their ideology'.
And yet, I beg to disagree. The economic ideology that created the crash remains intact and
unchallenged. There has been no reckoning and no lessons were learned, as the banks and their
shareholders were rescued, at the cost of about everyone else in society, by massive public
bail-outs, zero interest rates and unprecedented liquidity creation by central banks. Finance
staged a major come-back -- profits, dividends, salaries and bonuses in the financial industry
have rebounded to where they were before, while the re-regulation of finance became stuck in
endless political negotiations. Stock markets, meanwhile, notched record highs (before the
downward 'correction' of February 2018), derivative markets have been doing rather well and
under-priced risk-taking in financial markets has gathered steam (again), this time especially
so in the largest emerging economies of China, India and Brazil (BIS 2017; Gabor 2018). In the
process, global finance has become more concentrated and even more integral to capitalist
production and accumulation. The reason why even the Great Financial Crisis left the supremacy
of financial interests and logic unchallenged, is simple: there is no acceptable alternative
mode of social regulation to replace our financialized mode of co-ordination and
decision-making.
Accordingly, instead of a long overdue rethinking of Hayek's legacy, the economics
profession has gone, with renewed vigour, for an even broader push for 'financial inclusion'
(Mader 2018; Chandrasekhar and Ghosh 2018). Backed by the international financial institutions,
'social business' promotors (such as the World Economic Forum) and FinTech corporations, it
proposes to extend financial markets into new areas including social protection and poverty
alleviation (Lavinas 2018; Chandrasekhar and Ghosh 2018) and climate change mitigation (Arsel
and Büscher 2015; Keuchyan 2018). Most economists were already persuaded, by a voluminous
empirical literature (reviewed by Levine (2005)), to believe, with ample qualification and due
caution, that finance and financial markets do contribute to economic growth -- a proposition
that Nobel Laureate financial economist Merton Miller (1998, p. 14) found "almost too obvious
for serious discussion". But now greater financialization is argued to be integral to not just
'growth' but 'inclusive growth', as World-Bank economists Demirgüc-Kunt, Klapper and
Singer (2017) conclude in a recent review article: "financial inclusion allows people to make
many everyday financial transactions more efficiently and safely and expand their investment
and financial risk management options by using the formal financial system. This is especially
relevant for people living in the poorest 40 percent of households." The way to extend the good
life to more people is not to shrink finance nor restrain financial innovation, writes Robert
Shiller (2012) in a book titled Finance and the Good Society , but instead to release
it. Shiller's book celebrates finance's 'genuine beauty' and exhorts idealistic (sic)
young students to pursue careers in derivatives, insurance and related fields.
'Really-Existing' Finance Capitalism
Financialization underwrites neoliberal narratives and discourses which emphasize individual
responsibility, risk-taking and active investment for the benefit of the individual
him-/herself -- within the 'neutral' or even 'natural' constraints imposed by financial markets
and financial norms of creditworthiness (Palma 2009; Kear 2012). This way, financialization
morphs into a 'technique of power' to maintain a particular social order (Palma 2009; Saith
2011), in which the delicate task of balancing competing social claims and distributive
outcomes is offloaded to the 'invisible hand' which operates through anonymous, 'blind'
financial markets (Krippner 2005, 2011). This is perhaps illustrated clearest by Michael Hudson
(2012, p. 223):
"Rising mortgage debt has made employees afraid to go on strike or even to complain about
working conditions. Employees became more docile in a world where they are only one paycheck
or so away from homelessness or, what threatens to become almost the same thing, missing a
mortgage payment. This is the point at which they find themselves hooked on debt
dependency."
Paul Krugman (2005) has called this a 'debt-peonage society' -- while J. Gabriel Palma
(2009, p. 833) labelled it a 'rentiers' delight' in which financialization sustains the
rent-seeking practices of oligopolistic capital -- as a system of discipline as well as
exploitation, which is "difficult to reconcile with any acceptable definition of democracy"
(Mann 2010, p. 18).
In this regime of social regulation, income and wealth became more concentrated in the hands
of the rentier class (Saith 2011; Goda, Onaran and Stockhammer 2017) , and as a result,
productive capital accumulation gave way before the increased speculative use of the 'economic
surplus of society' in pursuit of 'financial-capital' gains through asset speculation (Davis
and Kim 2015). This took the wind out of the sails of the 'real' economy, and firms responded
by holding back investment, using their profits to pay out dividends to their shareholders and
to buy back their own shares (Lazonick 2014). Because the rich own most financial assets,
anything that causes the value of financial assets to rise rapidly made the rich richer
(Taylor, Ömer and Rezai 2015).
In the U.S., arguably the most financialized economy in the world, the result of this was
extreme income polarization, unseen after WWII (Piketty 2014; Palma 2011). The 'American
Dream', writes Gabriel Palma (2009, p. 842), was "high jacked by a rather tiny minority -- for
the rest, it has only been available on credit!" Because that is what happened: lower- and
middle-income groups took on more debt to finance spending on health care, education or
housing, spurred by the deregulation of financial markets and changes in the tax code which
made it easier and more attractive for households with modest incomes to borrow in order to
spend. This debt-financed spending stimulated an otherwise almost comatose U.S. economy by
spurring consumption (Cynamon and Fazzari 2015). In the twenty years before the Great Financial
Crash, debts and 'financial excess' -- in the form of the asset price bubbles in 'New Economy'
stocks, real estate markets and commodity (futures) markets -- propped up aggregate demand and
kept the U.S. and global economy growing. "We have," Paul Krugman (2013) concludes, "an economy
whose normal condition is one of inadequate demand -- of at least mild depression -- and which
only gets anywhere close to full employment when it is being buoyed by bubbles."
But it is not just the U.S. economy: the whole world has become addicted to debt. The
borrowings of global households, governments and firms have risen from 246% of GDP in 2000 to
327%, or $ 217 trillion, today -- which is $70 trillion higher than 10 years ago. [4] It means that for every
extra dollar of output, the world economy cranks out more than almost 10 extra dollars of debt.
Forget about the synthetic opioid crisis, the world's more dangerous addiction is to debt.
China, which has been the engine of the global economy during most of the post-2008 period, has
been piling up debt to keep its growth process going -- the IMF (2017) expects China's
non-financial sector debt to exceed 290% of its GDP in 2022, up from around 140% (of GDP) in
2008, warning that China's current credit trajectory is "dangerous with increasing risks of a
disruptive adjustment." China's insatiable demand for debt fueled growth, but also led to a
property bubble and a rapidly growing shadow banking system (Gabor 2018) -- raising concerns
that the economy may face a hard landing and send shockwaves through the world's financial
markets. The next global financial catastrophe may be just around the corner.
How Finance Is Reshaping the 'Rules of the Game'
To understand this debt explosion we must comprehend what is driving the financial
hyper-activity -- and how this is changing the way our economies work. For a start, the growth
of the financial industry, in terms of its size and power, its incomprehensible complexity and
its penetration into the real economy, is inseparably connected to the structural increase in
income and wealth inequalities (Foster and McChesney 2012; Storm and Naastepad 2015; Cynamon
and Fazzari 2015; Goda, Onaran and Stockhammer 2017). Richer households have a higher
propensity to save and are more likely to hold financial wealth in risky assets (such as mutual
funds, shares and bonds) and hence, more money ends up in the management of institutional
investors or 'asset managers' (Epstein 2018; Gabor 2018). As a result, a small core of the
global population, the so-called High Net Worth Individuals (Lysandrou 2011; Goda
2017), controls an increasingly larger share of incomes and wealth (Palma 2011; Saith 2011;
Piketty 2014; Taylor, Ömer and Rezai 2015). This trend was strengthened by the shift
towards capital-based pension schemes (Krippner 2011) and the structural increase in the
liquidity preference of big shareholder-dominated corporations, which came about under pressure
from activist shareholders wanting to 'disgorge the cash' within these firms (Lazonick 2014;
Epstein 2018; Jayadev et al. 2018). However, with few sufficiently profitable
investment opportunities in the "real economy", cash wealth -- originating out of a higher
profit share, dividends, shareholder payouts and capital gains on earlier financial investments
-- began to accumulate in global centrally managed 'institutional cash pools', the volume of
which grew from an insignificant $100 billion in 1990 to a systemic $6 trillion at the end of
2013 (Pozsar 2011, 2015). [5]
OTC derivative trading requires the availability of cheap liquidity on demand
(Mehrling 2012) and this means that the 'asset management complex' cannot invest the cash pools
into long-term assets, but has to keep the liquidity available -- ready to use when the
possibility for a profitable deal arises. But doing so poses enormous risks, because the global
cash pools are basically uninsured: they are far too big to fall under the coverage of normal
deposit-insurance schemes offered by the traditional banking system (Pozsar 2011). Securing
'principal safety' for the cash pools under their management thus became the main headache of
the asset managers -- which proved to be a far greater challenge than generating adequate rates
of return for the cash-owners. The reason was that the traditional way of securing principal
safety of one's cash was by putting it in very short-term government bonds which were
credit-rated as being 'safe' ( e.g. U.S. T-Bills or German Bunds ).
This way, the cash pool became 'collateralized' -- backed up by sovereign bonds. But as
inequality increased and global institutional cash pools expanded, the demand for safe
collateral began to permanently exceed the availability of 'safe' government bonds (Pozsar
2011; Lysandrou and Nesvetailova 2017).
The only way out was by putting the cash into newly developed privately guaranteed
instruments: asset-backed securities . These instruments were secured by collateral
(Lysandrou and Nesvetailova 2017) -- that is, the cash pools were lent, on a very short term
basis (often over-night), to securitization trusts, banks and other asset owners in exchange
for safe and secure collateral -- on the agreement that the borrower would repurchase the
collateral some time later (often the next day). This is called a repurchase or 'repo'
transaction (Gorton and Metrick 2009) or an 'asset-backed commercial paper' deal (Covitz, Lang
and Suarez 2013). Normally, the cash loan would be over-collateralized, with the cash provider
receiving collateral of a higher value than the value of the cash; the basic workings of the
'repo' market are further explained in Storm (2018). These (short-term) deals are generally
done within the shadow banking system, the mostly 'self-regulated' sphere of the financial
sector which arose in response to the growing demand for risk intermediation on behalf of --
and the prioritization of a 'safe parking place' for -- the global institutional cash pools
(Pozsar 2011; Pozsar and Singh 2011). The repo lender and the securities borrower -- each lends
cash and gets back securities -- can re-use those securities as collateral to get repo loans
for themselves. And the next cash lender, which gets the same securities as collateral, can
re-use them again as collateral to get a repo loan for itself. And so on. This creates a
'chain' in which one set of securities gets re-used several times as collateral for several
loans. This so-called re-hypothecation (Pozsar and Singh 2011) means that these
securities were increasingly used as 'money', a means of payment in inter-bank deals, within
the shadow banking system.
It should be clear that 'securities', which are privately 'manufactured' and guaranteed
money market instruments, form the feedstock of this complex and opaque 'profit-generating
machine' of inter-bank wheeling and dealing -- both by providing 'insurance' to the global cash
pools and by acting as an (privately guaranteed) means of payment in OTC trading.
'Securitization' is the most critical, yet under-appreciated, enabler of financialization
(Davis and Kim 2015). What then is securitization? It is the process of taking 'passive' assets
with cash flows, such as mortgages held by commercial banks, and commodifying them into
tradable securities. Securities are 'manufactured' using a portfolio of hundreds or thousands
of underlying assets, all yielding a particular return (in the form of cash flow) and carrying
a particular risk of default to their buyers. Due to the law of large numbers, the payoff from
the portfolio becomes predictable and suitable for being sliced up in different 'tranches',
each having a different risk profile. Storm (2018) provides a simple but illustrative numerical
example of how a security is manufactured using a two-asset example. As Davis and Kim (2015)
argue, securitization represents a fundamental shift in how finance is done. In the old days of
'originate-and-hold' (before the 1980s), (regulated) commercial banks would originate mortgage
loans and keep them on their balance sheets for the duration of the loan period. But now in our
era of 'originate-and-distribute', (de-regulated) commercial banks originate mortgages, but
then sell them off to securitization trusts which turn these mortgages into 'securities' and
vend them to financial investors. Securitization thus turns a concrete long-term relationship
between a bank ( i.e. Schumpeter's 'ephor') and the loan-taker into an abstract
relationship between anonymous financial markets and the loan-taker (in line with Hayek's
legacy). Commercial banks are now mere 'underwriters' of the mortgage (which is quickly sold
and securitized), while households which took the mortgage, are now de facto 'issuers
of securities' on (global) financial markets. This is the essence of the shift in financial
intermediation from banks to financial markets (Lysandrou and Nesvetailova 2017). Kane (2013,
2015) explains how this system is enjoying the implicit back-up of central banks and states and
how it is leading to predatory risk-taking by mega-banks.
This securitization fundamentally transformed the 'rules of the capitalist game', often in
rather perverse directions. For one, as finance expanded, the demand for 'investment-grade'
(AAA-rated) securities grew -- and the result was a hunt for additional collateral akin to
earlier gold rushes, write Pozsar and Singh (2011, p. 5): "Obtaining collateral is similar to
mining. It involves both exploration (looking for deposits of collateral) and extraction (the
"unearthing" of passive securities so they can be re-used as collateral for various purposes in
the shadow banking system)." Collateral is the new gold -- and this explains why banks (before
the Great Financial Crisis) gave loans to non-creditworthy (sub-prime) customers (Epstein 2018)
and why these same banks are now eager to include the poor in the financial system (Mader 2018)
and to enclose ever new spaces for profit-making (Arsel and Büscher 2012; Sathyamala 2017;
Keucheyan 2018). Mortgage loans (sub-prime or prime) or micro-credit deals derive their
systemic importance from the access they provide to the underlying collateral -- either in the
form of residential property or of high-return cash flows on micro-loans, made low-risk by peer
pressure.
This systemic importance (to the financial system, that is) by far exceeds the value of
these loans to the actual borrowers and it has led to and is still leading to an overdose of
finance -- with ruinous consequences. Likewise, one cannot understand what is going in
commodity and food markets unless one appreciates that trading in 'commodities' and 'food' is
not so much related to (present and future) consumption needs, but is increasingly dictated by
the market's alternative collateral, store-of-value, and safe-asset role in the global economy
(Clapp and Isakson 2018). That is, the commodity option or futures contract derives its value
more from its usefulness as 'collateralized securities' to back-up speculative shadow-banking
transactions than from its capacity to meet food demand or smoothen output prices for farmers.
We can add a fourth law to Zuboff's Laws (2013), namely that anything which can be
collateralized, will be collateralized. This even includes 'social policies', because the
present value of future streams of cash benefits for the poor can serve as collateral (see
Lavinas 2018). And because the major OTC markets require price volatility and spreads, exchange
rate volatility and uncertainty, which are 'bad' for the economic development of countries
attempting to industrialize (Bortz and Kaltenbrunner 2018), constitute a sine qua non
for the profitability of major OTC instruments including forex swaps and credit default swaps
(to 'hedge' the risks of the forex swaps). [7]
Perverse incentives, excessive risk-taking, fictitious financial instruments -- it appears
finance capitalism has reached its nadir. "In the way that even an accumulation of debts can
appear as an accumulation of capital," as Marx (1981, pp. 607-08) insightfully observed, "we
see the distortion involved in the credit system reach its culmination."
A 'One-Foot' Conclusion
The shift in financial intermediation from banks to financial markets, and the introduction
of financial market logic into areas and domains where it was previously absent, have not just
led to negative developmental impacts, but also changed the 'rules of the game', conduct and
outcomes -- to the detriment of 'inclusive' economic development and in ways that have helped
to legitimize -- what Palma (2009) has appositely called -- a 'rentiers' delight', a
financialized mode of social regulation which facilitated rent-seeking practices of a
self-serving global financial elite and at the same time enabled a sickening rise in
inequality. Establishment (financial) economics has helped to de-politicize and legitimize this
financialized mode of social regulation by invoking Hayek's epistemological claim that
(financial) markets are the only legitimate, reliably welfare-enhancing foundation for
a stable social order and economic progress.
It is this complacency of establishment economics which led to the global financial crash of
2008 and ten dire years of economic stagnation, high and rising inequalities in income and
wealth, historically unprecedented levels of indebtedness, and mounting uncertainty about jobs
and incomes in most nations. The crisis conditions crystalized into a steadily increasing
popular dissatisfaction of those supposedly 'left behind by (financial) globalization' with the
political and economic status quo; a dissatisfaction which amplified into a 'groundswell of
discontent' -- to use the words of the IMF's Managing Director Christine Lagarde (2016). Angry
and anxious electorates were transformed by demagogues into election-winning forces, as the
British 'Brexit' vote, Trump's (2016) and Erdogan's (2017) election victories in the U.S. and
Turkey, and recent political changes (toward authoritarianism) in Brazil, Egypt, the
Philippines and India all attest (see Becker, Fetzer and Novy (2017) for an analysis of the
Brexit vote; and Ferguson, Jorgenson and Chen (2018) for an assessment of the Trump vote).
We have to confront the Panglossian logic and arguments of (financial) economists, used to
legitimize the current financialized global order as the 'best of all possible worlds". We must
lay to rest the Hayekian claim that unregulated market-based finance is socially efficient --
as the macro- and micro-economic impacts of the rise to dominance of financial markets on
capital accumulation, growth and distribution have overwhelmingly been deleterious (Epstein
2018). Market-based finance is no longer funding the real economy (Epstein 2018; Jayadev, Mason
and Schröder 2018), but rather engages in self-serving strategy of rent-seeking
(Chandrasekhar and Ghosh 2018; Mader 2018), looting the 'fisc' (Chandrasekhar and Ghosh 2018;
Mader 2018), exchange rate and global stock market speculation (Bortz and Kaltenbrunner 2018),
OTC derivatives speculation (Keucheyan 2018; Clapp and Isakson 2018) and collateral mining
(Gabor 2018; Lavinas 2018) -- asphyxiating economic development.
This does not mean, however, that Schumpeter and Gerschenkron were wrong in calling the
banker the 'ephor' of capitalism and a 'phenomenon of development'. Finance can
positively contribute to economic development, something which indeed is "almost too obvious
for serious discussion" as Miller wrote, but only when the 'ephor' is 'governed' and 'directed'
by state regulation to structure accumulation and distribution into socially useful directions
(Epstein 2018; Jayadev, Mason and Schröder 2018). The East Asian miracle economies prove
the point that finance can be socially efficient if bankers can be made to work within the
'developmental mindset', the institutional arrangements and political compulsions of a
'developmental state', as argued by Wade (2018) -- China's recent move to (securities)
market-based finance may be the beginning of unravelling of its growth miracle (Gabor 2018; BIS
2017).
Rather than letting financial markets discipline the rest of the economy and the whole of
society, finance itself has to be disciplined by a countervailing social authority which
governs it to act in socially desirable directions. One famous account in the Talmud tells
about Rabbi Hillel, a great sage, who when he was asked to explain the Torah in the time that
he could stand on one foot, replied: "Do not do unto others that which is repugnant to you.
Everything else is commentary." If there is a one-foot summary of the literature reviewed in
this introduction, it is this: "Finance is a terrible 'ephor', but, if and when domesticated,
can be turned into a useful servant. Everything else is commentary."
"... These techniques are known in the intelligence community as "perception management," and have been refined since the 1980s "to keep the American people compliant and confused," as the late Robert Parry has reported . ..."
"... Population in the country was very poorly informed any how. And now, they, The Ruling Establishment which includes Media, have completely messed the people up -- making them compliant and confused. ..."
"... Does any body have idea how they are going to bring an end to this completely concocted bizarre drama? ..."
Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work effectively
to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least temporarily, to believe
the exact opposite of the facts.
These techniques are known in the intelligence community as "perception management," and
have been refined since the 1980s "to keep the American people compliant and confused," as the
late Robert Parry has reported
.
We saw this in action last decade, when after months of disinformation, about 70% of
Americans came to falsely believe that Saddam
Hussein was behind 9/11 when the truth was the opposite – Saddam was actually an enemy of
the Al Qaeda perpetrators.
... ... ...
Coleen Rowley, a retired FBI special agent and division legal counsel whose May 2002
memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named
one of TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002.
"Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work
effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least
temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts. These techniques are known in the
intelligence community as "perception management," and have been refined since the 1980s "to
keep the American people compliant and confused," as the late Robert Parry has reported. We
saw this in action last decade, when after months of disinformation, about 70% of Americans
came to falsely believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 when the truth was the opposite
-- Saddam was actually an enemy of the Al Qaeda perpetrators."
Cognitive dissonance, lack of critical thinking, reliance on authority, in this case a
former head of a criminal organization called the FBI.
People have no class consciousness. They have no idea who their enemies ar or how to
organize.
This is the sad case of liberalism melting like warm butter while the fascists
congeal.
Joe Tedesky , February 9, 2018 at 7:27 pm
Nicely put.
Dave P. , February 10, 2018 at 2:51 am
"Social psychologists have long talked about how emotional manipulation can work
effectively to snooker a large percentage of the population, to get them, at least
temporarily, to believe the exact opposite of the facts. . ."
Yes. On any bar counter, just start some conversation with the person sitting to you. With
all this bizarre drama -- Russia-Gate, Iran, memos, dossier . . . going on TV, and in
Washington being enacted knowingly by the the Powers who rule -- both, so called Liberals and
Conservatives -- one can see how this emotional manipulation has worked to snooker just about
most of the population. I just had the experience today during lunch at a bar counter. In our
conversation, the person sitting next to me was ready to nuke Iran, N. Korea, and go after
Russia; and go after Hillary too.
Population in the country was very poorly informed any how. And now, they, The Ruling
Establishment which includes Media, have completely messed the people up -- making them
compliant and confused.
Does any body have idea how they are going to bring an end to this completely
concocted bizarre drama?
"... The "Newspeak" we experience is straight out of Orwell's 1984. From Wikipedia: Newspeak is the fictional language in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality, and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as "thoughtcrime". ..."
"... It is truly scary how Orwellian our current situation has become reminding me that there are always two two takeaways from any story or historical record. Those that view it as a cautionary tale and those who use it as an instruction manual. ..."
"... We are also controlled through Doublespeak another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: Doublespeak is a language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Some common examples are the branding of liberals by pundits in the media as Fascists in order to eliminate the historical understanding of exactly what that word refers to. Another example is the appearance of the term Alt Right which is used to confuse and obscure the true nature of these groups. A great example of the doublespeak the media exercises in service to the state is the instantaneous adoption of the term Alt Right and nary ever a mention of its former names such as White Supremacist, Neo Nazi, Racist, Hate Group etc. They just rename these movements and hide all the other terms from sight. Another example is scapegoating the same group of people but under a different term. Today the term is Liberal but in the past, the Nazi movement called them Jews, Communists, Intellectuals etc. Whatever the term, the target of these attacks are always the ones that threaten the Power Structure. ..."
"... Joseph Goebbels was in charge of the war propaganda for the Nazis during WWII. He said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." ..."
The reason we are in the pickle barrel is exactly the reasons stated in the article and by Annie. We are exposed to exactly
what they want to show us and are blinded by other narratives which do not support the group think. It is as if the politicians,
the intelligence community and the media are all involved in a conspiracy. Remember that word means a plan by two or more people.
No tin foil hat required. But anyone suggesting conspiracy is instantly branded a nut hence the universal use of the term conspiracy
nut as a derogatory term to label anyone with a different message that somehow captures the attention of a wider audience. It
is not so much that all Holly Wood stars are liberal socialists. They are a diverse group. However they all have one thing in
common which is they have the public's ear. They are also not on point with the approved messaging and so must be continuously
branded as conspiracy nuts and socialist subversives. We all have seen the 24/7 bashing of these folks. Control is the reason.
The "Newspeak" we experience is straight out of Orwell's 1984. From Wikipedia: Newspeak is the fictional language in the
novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell. It is a controlled language created by the totalitarian state Oceania as
a tool to limit freedom of thought, and concepts that pose a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality,
and peace. Any form of thought alternative to the party's construct is classified as "thoughtcrime".
It is truly scary how Orwellian our current situation has become reminding me that there are always two two takeaways from
any story or historical record. Those that view it as a cautionary tale and those who use it as an instruction manual.
I am appalled by how the media at first put Trump in the game in the first place for economic gain (see Les Moonvies article)
and then created another fictional fantasy which serves the goal of permawar and control of the citizenry through fear, confusion
and ignorance. We are all exposed to the Daily Two Minutes of Hate another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: The Two Minutes
Hate, from George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is a daily period in which Party members of the society of Oceania must
watch a film depicting the Party's enemies (notably Emmanuel Goldstein and his followers) and express their hatred for them for
exactly two minutes. The difference is we can find it 24/7 on our technological wonder machines.
Another Orwellian concept is The Ministry of Truth: The Ministry of Truth (in Newspeak, Minitrue) is the ministry of propaganda.
As with the other ministries in the novel, the name Ministry of Truth is a misnomer because in reality it serves the opposite:
it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. From Wikipedia: As well as administering truth, the ministry
spreads a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak, in which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like
2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants. In keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is thus aptly named in that it
creates/manufactures "truth" in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes the doctoring of historical records to show
a government-approved version of events.
We are also controlled through Doublespeak another Orwellian concept. From Wikipedia: Doublespeak is a language that deliberately
obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Some common examples are the branding of liberals by pundits
in the media as Fascists in order to eliminate the historical understanding of exactly what that word refers to. Another example
is the appearance of the term Alt Right which is used to confuse and obscure the true nature of these groups. A great example
of the doublespeak the media exercises in service to the state is the instantaneous adoption of the term Alt Right and nary ever
a mention of its former names such as White Supremacist, Neo Nazi, Racist, Hate Group etc. They just rename these movements and
hide all the other terms from sight. Another example is scapegoating the same group of people but under a different term. Today
the term is Liberal but in the past, the Nazi movement called them Jews, Communists, Intellectuals etc. Whatever the term, the
target of these attacks are always the ones that threaten the Power Structure.
Joseph Goebbels was in charge of the war propaganda for the Nazis during WWII. He said: "If you tell a lie big enough and keep
repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield
the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State
to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is
the greatest enemy of the State."
If these things seem eerily similar to what is going on today then we probably have a power structure which is a grave threat
for peace. Okay, we do have a power structure that is a grave threat to peace but oddly not democracy. Noam Chomsky wrote about
propaganda stating, "it's the essence of democracy" This notion is contrary to the popular belief that indoctrination is inconsistent
with democracy. The point is that in a totalitarian state, it doesn't much matter what people think because you can control what
they do. But when the state loses the bludgeon, when you can't control people by force and when the voice of the people can be
heard, you have to control what people think. And the standard way to do this is to resort to what in more honest days used to
be called propaganda. Manufacture of consent. Creation of necessary illusions.
The folks who contribute here on this website are few indeed and what lies beyond the haven of the oasis is a vast barren dessert
filled with scorpions, snakes and a whole bunch of lies.
Well said for Annie and the authors.
Democracy may be the ultimate tool of control of the masses.
More wisdom from Goebbels:
Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will
A media system wants ostensible diversity that conceals an actual uniformity.
We are striving not for truth, but effect.
The worst enemy of any propaganda, it is intellectualism.
For the lie to be believable, it should be terrifying.
A lie repeated thousands of times becomes a truth.
Some day the lie will fall under its own weight and the truth will rise.
I like that last one a lot but unfortunately it will not come to pass until things get bad.
Citizen One – You have beautifully & precicely nailed the means ( "how" ) the
USA has gotten in such a mess : Newspeak, Daily Two Minutes of Hate, The Ministry of Truth,
DoubleSpeak and the way and why of how Propaganda actually works. George Orwell was a
seer.
AND now it would be helpful to understand "why" the USA has gotten in such a mess. The
polarity of American politics tells a very long story but in short, polarity means there are
only two ways and when the going gets tough, each way is in the extreme – the right way
or the wrong way, it flips depending on each individual's political persuasion. When the
going gets tough the extremes become the tail that wags the dog.
So my question is : WHY after the seemingly happy years under Obama did the going get so
tough so fast?
My pet theory is that Trump threatened to "drain the swamp" which was understood –
seemingly now quite rightly – that he was going to expose some very significant wrong
doing in very high places. I believe that he was on "NYC/DC" friendly terms with the Clintons
and both parties knew each other for the true devil they were. Thus the big red flag he waved
in her face brought about what is turning in to a multi billion dollar ongoing attempt to
discredit him in the eyes of the people, in the eyes of the World and in the eyes of the
highest courts " America be damned".
And politically this is quite necessary because she is not only an icon of all that is
American,"apple pie and motherhood"; she is to the under 45 age group the great white mother
of democracy via Democrat rule. And the bad part of that iconography is that if she goes down
so does the party. It was also critical for her to win because of all the swamp people who
had chosen to compromise their life's work, thus had to continue in that compromise in the
hope that they would come out clean since they believed that both Trump and the ordinary
American were so naive, thus would be easily played for fools.
So all this crap to destroy Trump is about saving her hide to save the party. Things are
so desperate now because there is nothing yet in place to replace her in the mind's eye of
the Democratic half the voting public. All who might have been in 2nd place were kept
diminished to raise her higher. It now is quite obvious that she has been told to shut up and
lie low, to come out only when she is in safe company – as at the Golden Globes. So the
big picture today as is being painted and hyped to intensify mass hysteria is that Mueller
needs to be protected from Trump where really what is needed are the names and numbers to be
called on for more $$$, more social media propaganda pages and to vote in November 2018.
Why only that? Because Trump is not going to fire Mueller; remember Mueller was a Bush man
and so was Comey. They have a long history of going both ways. Survival is tricky business
– especially in DC. The scapegoats are already cornered; possibly the new "lie" is
already in draft form. Remember – "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it,
people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as
the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of
the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress
dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is
the greatest enemy of the State."
It is going to be an interesting next few months!! But we can hope that, from this one of
many previous American political exercises in democracy, the ordinary defenders of those
democratic values (the voters) will learn some significant truths about governance,
transparency and the rule of law. The guys at the top are not gods and are not above the law;
they must not only do right but be seen to do right.
CitizenOne , February 10, 2018 at 7:57 pm
The only thing I can tell you is that the conspirators who concocted Russia Gate have
figured out all the pieces to the puzzle of how to control events via the means I mentioned
and many other means. We are as manipulated as a light switch. One way we are all fired up
about some BS and flip the switch and we are all calm and mellow. Hopefully if you follow the
threads here you will find out a lot of alternative information much of it thoroughly
researched by highly respected and qualified individuals who are in a position to know the
truth.
Mariam , February 10, 2018 at 7:11 pm
I agree with you wholeheartedly. They call themselves "liberals" in fact they are "new
liberals."
Alas, these false ("new) liberals" are very well represented by the Obamas, the Clintons, the
Trudeaus, the Macrons and so on.
If you truly believe in the "left" and call yourself "progressive" you couldn't stand for
useless and pointless wars, period.
I am posting this info. to this site, as part of personal approach as a US citizen to try to
get some REAL FACTS out into the supposedly professional platforms of economists. This
platforms are woefully lacking in good, factual information to communicate to anyone, even
amongst themselves, and especially to Joe living on an street, or hopefully any house on any
street in the US.
Now, what am I posting? The information that I am posting is an example of confusing
information that is extremely invalid and should NOT be posted by so-called reliable sources,
of professional, or "expertise" information. The reason I am posting an article that is
confusing is because this article by Krugman is also confusing, and just as unreliable as the
"confusing article" that was written by Alan Harkin at INVESTOPEDIA.
If you can't believe Investopedia's information, then who can you believe? I am posting
the article as an article that the reader can NOT believe. The linked article is absolutely
mis-stating IRS facts. This article is one of many that confuse the message about corporate
taxation.
Personally, I think it is deliberate. The title of the article: http://bit.ly/2Eof6eM
basically leads the reader "to believe" the article is about how much US corporations such as
APPLE, GOOGLE etc. "actually" bottomline- deliver to IRS. BUT, wait, when the reader "really
reads" the reader then notes, that the "charts" ONLY reflect the "tax rate". Now, that's a
whole different story. Tax rate is not bottomline taxes paid.
So, now if my "logic" and conclusion is "faulty", please enlighten me. The IRS data and
this article don't jive in the real world of statistical data. Here is link to STATISTA that
is THE data base that is used by top researchers worldwide.
This link shows the REAL data and percentage of corporate TAX PAID, AND FUTURE projections
for US etc. etc. I have selected the most obvious and easy to read chart.
The following link presents reliable fact VS The article from INVESTOPEDIA as garbage.
I am writing that the article in Investopedia by Aaron Hankin is BS. The content of the
article also attempts to establish correlations to S/P action that has absolutely NO
plausible fact to make any correlation about anything. I am also writing that most of the
media reports about "corporate tax" is BS. I also am writing that this article by Krugman is
a fluff, nonsense piece that is also BS. If Krugman were an economist that had any concern
about the US economy, he would have, and would be posting this link everywhere on earth.
All that I definitely am trying to do is to get "reasonable data" out there to influence
the public mindset to counter BS and try to present FACTS, just like a lot of other
intelligent readers are trying to do.
Basically, I am saying that the political posturing, and propaganda strategies of so many
different monied groups is demanding that any "serf" needs to present any comment as if the
"serf" is writing some sort of thesis. Really, all the "Talking Faces" are the ones who
should be doing that as they present messages to the public"serfs". Otherwise, there should
be public disclaimers as to who is paying the "Talking Faces" for delivering their
"propaganda". The "sponsored message" dynamics is so convoluted, that any viewer sure can't
presume anything. Basically, It just looks like a lot of "Talking Faces" are just making
themselves into asses, based on their assumption, and presumptions.
Why do you think anyone associated with investors is an economist rather than a snake oil
salesman in the medicine show that is extremely boring?
What to understand economics? Pay attention to Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos.
They pay US workers to build productive assets like factories, transportation products,
energy harvesting products, information you want products, all of which can be matched only
by competitors paying hundreds of billions to millions of US workers just to catch up in a
decade.
"... Consider those who in their late forties got hit by the last bank-owned/Wall Street crash. They lost a good chunk of their 401ks...and had to cash out the remainder to just cover former obligations. Then they were told to go back to school (again involving, at least here in the US, major debt to do so). Who benefited.. the same bank and Wall Street loan sharks. So now in their early fifties and competing against much younger people, they struggled to pay off their incurred re-training/education loans, with nary a penny to spare to invest for what they had after years of saving lost. It's a mugs game, with the only ones winning are the top 1-2% who are able to bet against their own investments. ..."
Both sides of Congress serve the wealthy with the intention of gaining wealth for themselves.
Trump is not much different than the dems (that's why Obama told Bernie to leave). The US is
purely capitalistic. Money is everything. People without money are nothing, but if you toss
them in prison you can make money (and make them work for free). After eight years of Obama
the US is still the world's top prison state and there's more poverty than ever. Trump,
Obama, Hillary. All very similar. I just see dollar signs.
Consider those who in their late forties got hit by the last bank-owned/Wall Street crash.
They lost a good chunk of their 401ks...and had to cash out the remainder to just cover
former obligations. Then they were told to go back to school (again involving, at least here
in the US, major debt to do so). Who benefited.. the same bank and Wall Street loan sharks.
So now in their early fifties and competing against much younger people, they struggled to
pay off their incurred re-training/education loans, with nary a penny to spare to invest for
what they had after years of saving lost. It's a mugs game, with the only ones winning are
the top 1-2% who are able to bet against their own investments.
This is a problem because, at 4.1 percent last month, U.S. unemployment is at the lowest
level since 2000 and companies from Dallas to Denver are struggling to find the right
workers. In some cases this is constraining growth, the Federal Reserve
reported last week.
Corporate America's search for an exact match is "the number-one problem with hiring in
our country," said Daniel Morgan, a recruiter in Birmingham, Alabama, who owns an Express
Employment Professionals franchise. "Most companies get caught up on precise experience to a
specific job," he said, adding: "Companies fail to see a person for their abilities and
transferable skills."
U.S. employers got used to abundant and cheap labor following the 2007-2009 recession.
Unemployment peaked at 10 percent in October 2009, and didn't return to the lows of the
previous business cycle until last year. Firms still remain reluctant to boost pay or train
employees with less-than-perfect credentials, though recruiters say that may have to change
amid a jobless rate that's set to dip further.
The way the article is cut off with the wage gains chart makes it seem that the article is
on the Dean Baker theme of "pay higher wages and they will come," in which he argues that
there is no shortage because you can hire workers away from your competitor, thereby merely
moving the deficit from one place to another without eliminating it and unintentionally
suggesting that there is actually is a shortage after all.
Immediately after that chart, however, the article segues into a pretty intelligent
discussion of employers learning to ascertain "how can your experience be used in my
application," making it unclear why the wage chart is even there.
The "lack of trained workers" complaint has long annoyed me, with its implication that it
is the public sector's responsibility to train workers for the private sector. Why? If a
company needs welders, why should that company not train its own welders?
J.Goodwin , January 29, 2018 11:39 am
Last week we were reviewing a job description we were preparing for a role in Canada. It
was basically a super senior description, they wanted everything, specific experience, higher
education, what amounts to a black belt project management certification but also accounting
and finance background.
At the bottom it says 5 years experience.
I almost fell off my chair. That's an indicator of the pay band they were trying to fill
at (let's say 3, and the description was written like a 10-15 years 6).
I tried to explain it to the person who wrote it and I said hey if we put this out there,
we will get no hits. There is no one with this experience who will take what you are
offering. I'm afraid we're going to end up with another home country expat instead. They're
often not up the same standard you could get with a local if you reasonably scoped the job
and gave a fair offer.
I think companies have forgotten how to compete for employees, and the recruiters are
completely out of touch. Or maybe they are aware of the conditions and HR just won't sign on
to fair value.
Mona Williams , January 29, 2018 1:09 pm
Before I retired 12 years ago, on-the-job training was much more common. Borders Books
(remember them?) trained me for a week with pay for just a temporary Christmas-season job.
Employers have gotten spoiled, and I hope they will figure this out. Some of the training
programs I hear about just make me sigh. Nobody can afford to be trained while not being
paid.
axt113 , January 29, 2018 1:26 pm
My Wife works as a junior recruiter, the problem she says is with the employers, they want
a particular set of traits, and if there is even a slight deviation they balk
She says that one recent employer she worked with wanted so many particulars for not
enough pay that even well experienced and well educated candidates she could find were either
unwilling to accept the offer, or were missing one or two traits that made them unacceptable
to the company.
rps , January 29, 2018 3:58 pm
This is exciting news for many of us who've been waiting for the pendulum to swing in
favor of potential employees after a decade of reading employers help wanted Santa wish list
criteria for a minimum wage job of 40+ hours. I'd argue the unemployment rate is not 4.1%;
rather, I know of many intelligent/educated/experienced versatile people who've been cut out
of the job market and/or chose not to work for breadcrumbs.
HR's 6 second resume review rule of potential candidates was a massive failure by
eliminating candidates whose skills, experience and critical thinking abilities could've
cultivated innovation across many disciplines. Instead companies looked for drone replacement
at slave wages. HR's narrow candidate searches often focused on resume typos or perceived
grammatical errors (highly unlikely HR recruiters have an English Ph.D), thus trashing the
resume. Perhaps, HR will be refitted with critical thinking people who see a candidate's
potential beyond the forgotten comma or period.
Some banks blew out the mortgage market, [and] they blew out technology investment two
decades ago. What are they doing now? They are financing energy investments, and they are
financing consumer debt. This is an almost brainless approach.
Via
Marketwatch
Jamie Galbraith states his thoughts on a how the current US economy functions. Here are a
few snippets:
University of Texas economist Galbraith, the son of the famous Harvard economist John
Kenneth Galbraith, believes mainstream economists and the Federal Reserve are too wedded to
old ideas to see what is really going on in the economy. Specifically, Galbraith is worried
that the consumer is the only game in town -- and that can't last.
Galbraith used his latest book "The End of Normal" to lay out his case that
the 2007-08 financial crisis wasn't just a brief interruption in the life of an otherwise
healthy economy but instead the latest crisis for an economy that lost its footing back in
the 1980s.
At the American Economic Association meeting in Philadelphia, MarketWatch asked Galbraith
to share his views on the economic landscape.
(On inflation and labor) There is no Phillips Curve, and there hasn't been for decades.
The supply of labor is not a constraint. If you wish to pay people higher wages, you could
lure people back out of retirement. Net immigration has basically stopped. If you needed
more workers, it would start up again. So we don't have a real labor-force constraint. We
are not going to get inflationary pressure from the labor markets. It has been 40 years.
Economists are slow learners, and central bankers are a slow-learning subset. They should
recognize that things did change in the 1980s.
(Losing ground in global trade) I think that is clearly the case in the wider world. The
Chinese have engaged in an extraordinary exercise in engineering in recent years
domestically, building 12,000 miles of high-speed rail. They now have vast engineering
capacity, and they are applying it to their periphery -- a One Belt One Road network that
will orient commerce across Eurasia and into Africa as well that is in the interest of
furthering Chinese development. This is on a scale which dwarfs anything that is being
conceived of in the United States. (Dan here This statement is before the sh**hole
storm)
(On infrastucture)Trump came in with the idea that we should be investing heavily in
infrastructure. He got no traction from the Republican Congress. Why is that? Because the
immediate beneficiaries of an infrastructure program are people who live in cities, people
who live in the expensive coastal areas of the country -- and these people don't vote
Republican. So a political obstacle that prevented the one sensible or necessary element of
Trump's political framework from getting any traction at all.
(Role of banks) You have to have a situation where banks, which are publicly chartered
institutions, serve a public purpose with some common objectives. Some banks blew out the
mortgage market, [and] they blew out technology investment two decades ago. What are they
doing now? They are financing energy investments, and they are financing consumer debt.
This is an almost brainless approach.
"Controlling the narrative" is politically correct term for censorship.
Notable quotes:
"... I suspect most of the people who write all that furious invective on the Internet, professional polemicists and semiliterate commenters alike, are lashing out because they've been hurt -- their sense of fairness or decency has been outraged, or they feel personally wounded or threatened. ..."
"... "controlling the narrative" by neoliberal MSM is the key of facilitating the neoliberal "groupthink". Much like was in the USSR with "communist" groupthink. This is a step in the direction of the theocratic society (which the USSR definitely was). ..."
"... In other words "controlling the narrative" is the major form of neoliberal MSM "war on reality" as the neoliberal ideology is now completely discredited and can be sustained only by cult-style methods. ..."
Maybe this is the same kind of clinical detachment doctors have to cultivate, a way of distancing oneself from the subject,
protecting yourself against a crippling empathy. I won't say that writers or artists are more sensitive than other people, but
it may be that they're less able to handle their own emotions.
It may be that art, like drugs, is a way of dulling or controlling pain. Eloquently articulating a feeling is one way to avoid
actually experiencing it.
Words are only symbols, noises or marks on paper, and turning the messy, ugly stuff of life into language renders it inert
and manageable for the author, even as it intensifies it for the reader.
It's a nerdy, sensitive kid's way of turning suffering into something safely abstract, an object of contemplation.
I suspect most of the people who write all that furious invective on the Internet, professional polemicists and semiliterate
commenters alike, are lashing out because they've been hurt -- their sense of fairness or decency has been outraged, or
they feel personally wounded or threatened.
"controlling the narrative" by neoliberal MSM is the key of facilitating the neoliberal "groupthink". Much like was in the
USSR with "communist" groupthink. This is a step in the direction of the theocratic society (which the USSR definitely was).
In other words "controlling the narrative" is the major form of neoliberal MSM "war on reality" as the neoliberal ideology
is now completely discredited and can be sustained only by cult-style methods.
They want to invoke your emotions in the necessary direction and those emotions serve as a powerful filter, a firewall which
will prevents you from seeing any alternative facts which taken as whole form an "alternative narrative".
It also creates certain taboo, such as "don't publish anything from RT", or you automatically become "Putin's stooge." But
some incoherent blabbing of a crazy neocon in Boston Globe is OK.
This is an old and a very dirty game, a variation of method used for centuries by high demand cults:
"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best
that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece.
Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood.
But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works
the same way in any country."
– Hermann Goering (as told to Gustav Gilbert during the Nuremberg trials)
You need to be able to decipher this "suggested" set of emotions and detach it from the set of facts provided by neoliberal
MSM. It might help to view things "Sine ira et studio" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_ira_et_studio
)
That helps to destroy the official neoliberal narrative.
Here skepticism (whether natural or acquired) can be of great help in fighting groupthink pushed by neoliberal MSM.
We are all guilty of this one sidedness, but I think that we need to put some efforts to move in direction of higher level
of skepticism toward our own views and probably provide at least links to alternative views.
"... The reception of God's mercy in dependent upon a person's acknowledgement of his sins, Pope Francis said Wednesday, because "the proud person is unable to receive forgiveness." ..."
"... "What can the Lord give to those whose hearts are full of themselves and their own success?" the Pope asked the thousands of pilgrims gathered in the Vatican for his General Audience . "Nothing, because the presumptuous person is unable to receive forgiveness, since he is full of his supposed justice." ..."
The reception of God's mercy in dependent upon a person's acknowledgement of his sins,
Pope Francis said Wednesday, because "the proud person is unable to receive
forgiveness."
"What can the Lord give to those whose hearts are full of themselves and their own success?"
the Pope asked the thousands of pilgrims gathered in the Vatican for his General
Audience . "Nothing, because the presumptuous person is unable to receive forgiveness,
since he is full of his supposed justice."
The Pope called to mind Jesus's parable of the Pharisee and the
publican, where only the publican, or tax collector, receives forgiveness for his sins and
returns home justified.
"Those who are aware of their own miseries and lower their eyes with humility, feel the
merciful gaze of God resting on them," Francis said. "We know from experience that only those
who can acknowledge their faults and ask forgiveness receive the understanding and pardon of
others."
"... It does, after all, have deep roots in the Manifest Destiny ethos that spurred the Mexican War, drove continental and trans-Pacific expansion, and emerged as a paternalistic justification for voluminous military interventions in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. As Dick Cheney suggests, "the world needs a powerful America." In this unilateral missionizing zeal Clinton proves most typical. ..."
"... she wants the United States to be the dominant power in the world, so she doesn't question the massive sums spent on the military and on the other branches of the national-security state. ..."
"... But Clinton's brand of American exceptionalism goes beyond the issue of American military dominion and into the policy potentials of mid-century social liberalism and, more specifically, the neoliberalism that has since replaced it. Indeed, since George McGovern's failed presidential bid of 1972, neoliberals, moving decidedly rightward on economic issues, have consistently employed exceptionalist code to fight off movements, ideas, and challengers from the left. ..."
"... She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism. ..."
...It's hilarious how cocky and
confident the neoliberals were throughout the election. It's amazing how wrong they were.
Trump's victory is almost worth it.
Published on
Friday, February 26, 2016
by Common Dreams
"We Are Not Denmark": Hillary Clinton and Liberal American Exceptionalism
by Matthew Stanley
Several months removed, it now seems clear that the Democratic debate on October 13
contained an illuminating moment that has come to embody the 2016 Democratic Primary and the
key differences between its two candidates. Confronting Bernie Sanders's insistence that the
United States has much to learn from more socialized nations, particularly the Nordic Model,
Hillary Clinton was direct: "I love Denmark. But we are not Denmark. We are the United States
of America."
The implication behind this statement-the reasoning that ideas and institutions (in this
case social and economic programs) that are successful in other nations are somehow
practically or ideologically inconsistent with Americans and American principles-speaks to a
longstanding sociopolitical framework that has justified everything from continental expansion
to the Iraq War: American exceptionalism. Rooted in writings of Alexis de Tocqueville and the
mythology of John Winthrop's "City Upon a Hill," the notion that the history and mission of
the United States and the superiority of its political and economic traditions makes it
impervious to same the forces that influence other peoples has coursed through Abraham
Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address," the Cold War rhetoric of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson,
and the foreign policy declarations of Barack Obama.
Despite particular historical trends-early and relatively stable political democracy,
birthright citizenship, the absence of a feudal tradition, the relative weakness of class
consciousness-historians have critiqued this "American exceptionalism" as far more fictive
than physical, frequently citing the concept as a form of state mythology. Although different
histories lead naturally to historical and perhaps even structural dissimilarities, America's
twenty-first century "exceptions" appear as dubious distinctions: gun violence, carbon
emissions, mass incarceration, wealth inequality, racial disparities, capital punishment,
child poverty, and military spending.
Yet even at a time when American exceptionalism has never been more challenged both by
empirically-validated social and economic data and in public conversation, the concept
continues to play an elemental role in our two-party political discourse. The Republican Party
is, of course, awash with spurious, almost comically stupid dialogue about a mythic American
past-"making America great again"-the racial and ethnic undertones of which are unmistakable.
Those same Republicans have lambasted Obama and other high profile Democrats for not believing
sufficiently in their brand of innate, transhistoric American supremacy.
But this Americentrism is not the sole province of the GOP. We need look no further than
bipartisan support for the military-industrial complex and the surveillance state to see that
national exceptionalism, and its explicit double-standard toward other nations, resides
comfortably within the Democratic Party as well. Russian President Vladimir Putin and
Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa censured Obama's use of the term in the fall of 2013, with
the latter likening it to the "chosen race" theories of Nazi Germany. Hyperbole
notwithstanding, academics often do associate American exceptionalism with military conquest.
It does, after all, have deep roots in the Manifest Destiny ethos that spurred the
Mexican War, drove continental and trans-Pacific expansion, and emerged as a paternalistic
justification for voluminous military interventions in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle
East. As Dick Cheney suggests, "the world needs a powerful America." In this unilateral
missionizing zeal Clinton proves most typical.
As historian Michael Kazin argues in a
recent piece for The Nation: "Hillary Clinton is best described as a liberal. Like every
liberal president (and most failed Democratic nominees) since Wilson,
she wants the United
States to be the dominant power in the world, so she doesn't question the massive sums spent
on the military and on the other branches of the national-security state.
"
But Clinton's brand of American exceptionalism goes beyond the issue of American
military dominion and into the policy potentials of mid-century social liberalism and, more
specifically, the neoliberalism that has since replaced it. Indeed, since George McGovern's
failed presidential bid of 1972, neoliberals, moving decidedly rightward on economic issues,
have consistently employed exceptionalist code to fight off movements, ideas, and challengers
from the left.
The victims include leftist efforts toward both American demilitarization and the expansion
of a "socialistic" welfare state. Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have
denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American
capitalism vis-ŕ-vis other developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone
explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully
explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her.
She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty,
unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that
she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United
States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the
Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism.
It also
revealed a more clandestine strain of American exceptionalism common among liberals and the
Democratic Party elite in which "opportunity" serves as a stand-in for wider egalitarian
reform. As Elizabeth Bruenig highlighted in The New Republic: "Since getting ahead on one's
own grit is such a key part of the American narrative, it's easy to see how voters might be
attracted to Clinton's opportunity-based answer to our social and economic woes, though it
leaves the problem of inequality vastly under-addressed. Indeed, a kind of American
exceptionalism does seem to underpin much opportunity-focused political rhetoric."
This preference for insider politics (rather than mass movements involving direct action)
and limited, means-tested social programs speaks to a broader truth about modern liberalism:
it functions in a way that not only doesn't challenge the basic tenets of American
exceptionalism, it often reinforces them. Whether vindicating war and torture and civil
liberties violations, talking past the War on Drugs and the carceral state, or exhibiting
coolness toward the type of popular protest seen during of Occupy Wall Street, with its direct
attacks on a sort of American Sonderweg, establishment Democrats are adept at using a more
"realistic" brand of Americentrism to consolidate power and anchor the party in the status
quo. Now the 2016 Democratic Primary has seen progressive ideas including universal health
care, tuition-free college, and a living minimum wage, all hallmarks of large swaths of the
rest of the developed world, delegitimized through some mutation of liberal exceptionalist
thinking. These broadminded reforms are apparently off limits, not because they are not good
ideas (though opponents make that appraisal too), but because somehow their unachievability is
exceptional to the United States.
All this is not to exclude (despite his "democratic socialist" professions) Sanders's own
milder brand of "America first," most evident in his economic nationalism, but to emphasize
that American exceptionalism and the logical and practical dangers it poses exist in degrees
across a spectrum of American politics. Whatever his nationalistic inclinations, Sanders's
constant reiteration of America's need to learn from and adapt to the social, economic, and
political models of other nations demonstrates an ethno-flexibility rarely seen in American
major party politics. "Every other major country " might as well be his official campaign
slogan. This bilateral outlook does not fit nearly as neatly within Clinton's traditional
liberal paradigm that, from defenses of American war and empire to the, uses American
exceptionalism tactically, dismissing its conservative adherents as nationalist overkill yet
quietly exploiting the theory when politically or personally expeditious.
In looking beyond our national shores and domestic origin-sources for fresh and functional
policy, Sanders seems to grasp that, from the so-called "foreign influences" of the Republican
free soil program or Robert La Follette's Wisconsin Idea or even Lyndon Johnson's Great
Society, American high politics have been at their most morally creative and sweepingly
influential not only when swayed by direct action and mass movements, but also when they are
less impeded by the constraints of ethnocentrism and exceptionalism. The "We are not Denmark"
sentiment might appear benign, lacking as it does the bluster of Republican claims to national
supremacy and imaginary "golden age" pasts and what economist Thomas Picketty has termed a
"mythical capitalism." But it is the "seriousness" and very gentility of liberal Americentrism
that underscores the power, omnipresence, and intellectual poverty of cultural dismissal. "I
still believe in American exceptionalism," Clinton has proclaimed in pushing for U.S. military
escalation in Syria. Indeed she does, and it is by no means relegated to the sphere of foreign
policy.
"... Whitehead documents how hard a not guilty verdict is to come by for an innocent defendant. Even if the falsely accused defendant and his attorney survive the prosecutor's pressure to negotiate a plea bargain and arrive at a trial, they are confronted with jurors who are unable to doubt prosecutors, police, or witnesses paid to lie against the innocent defendant. ..."
"... The question is: why do Americans not only sit silently while the lives of innocents are destroyed, but also actually support the destruction of the lives of innocents? Why do Americans believe "official sources" despite the proven fact that "official sources" lie repeatedly and never tell the truth? ..."
"... The only conclusion that one can come to is that the American people have failed. We have failed Justice. We have failed Mercy. We have failed the US Constitution. We have failed Truth. We have failed Democracy and representative government. We have failed ourselves and humanity. We have failed the confidence that our Founding Fathers put in us. We have failed God. If we ever had the character that we are told we had, we have obviously lost it. Little, if anything, remains of the "American character." ..."
"... The failure of the American character has had tremendous and disastrous consequences for ourselves and for the world. At home Americans have a police state in which all Constitutional protections have vanished. Abroad, Iraq and Libya, two formerly prosperous countries, have been destroyed. Libya no longer exists as a country. One million dead Iraqis, four million displaced abroad, hundreds of thousands of orphans and birth defects from the American ordnance, and continuing ongoing violence from factions fighting over the remains. These facts are incontestable. Yet the United States Government claims to have brought "freedom and democracy" to Iraq. "Mission accomplished," declared one of the mass murderers of the 21st century, George W. Bush. ..."
"... The question is: how can the US government make such an obviously false outrageous claim without being shouted down by the rest of the world and by its own population? Is the answer that good character has disappeared from the world? ..."
"... Or is the rest of the world too afraid to protest? Washington can force supposedly sovereign countries to acquiesce to its will or be cut off from the international payments mechanism that Washington controls, and/or be sanctioned, and/or be bombed, droned, or invaded, and/or be assassinated or overthrown in a coup. On the entire planet Earth there are only two countries capable of standing up to Washington, Russia and China, and neither wants to stand up if they can avoid it. ..."
"... For whatever the reasons, not only Americans but most of the world as well accommodate Washington's evil and are thereby complicit in the evil. Those humans with a moral conscience are gradually being positioned by Washington and London as "domestic extremists" who might have to be rounded up and placed in detention centers. Examine the recent statements by General Wesley Clark and British Prime Minister Cameron and remember Janet Napolitano's statement that the Department of Homeland Security has shifted its focus from terrorists to domestic extremists, an undefined and open-ended term. ..."
"... Americans with good character are being maneuvered into a position of helplessness. ..."
"... When Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was asked if the Clinton's regime's sanctions, which had claimed the lives of 500,000 Iraqi children, were justified, she obviously expected no outrage from the American people when she replied in the affirmative. ..."
"... ... Americans are "intentionally ignorant" of other countries' rights and sovereignty while other countries had been well-informed of America's malicious intents of destroying other countries' rights and sovereignty ... ..."
"... No, I don't think Americans are intentionally ignorant, any more than other nationalities. What they are tribal. Tribal peoples don't care whether their policies are right or wrong; they are instinctively loyal to them and to those who formulate them. ..."
"... "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind." -- Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda ..."
"... "Americans need to face the facts. The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise." ..."
"... "When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; a culture-death is a clear possibility." ..."
"... Look at the demographics of the Western Hemisphere. If you have a shred of honesty you just can't hang the blame on 'whites', put it on a bumper sticker or a #shittyhashtagmeme and go back to fucking off. The disgusting fraud of Manifest Destiny was a fig leaf to hide the enormity of these crimes; but, they are most obviously European crimes....& has Europe changed since the West was settled? Did Europeans even stop their warring amongst themselves? ..."
"... "The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise." ..."
"... I agree with Paul Craig Roberts. He asks "Why" and "How." Well, Paul, here is my answer. Decades of Public Education and over 50 years of mass media monopoly. In an age where FOX is the top rated News station and CNN is considered liberal? Where kids in Public school are offered Chocolate milk and frozen pizza for school breakfast before going to class rooms with 30-40 kids. When Texas political appointees chose school text book content for the nation? A nation where service has ended, replaced with volunteer soldiers signing up for pay and benefits, instead of just serving as service, like we did in the 70's? ..."
"... There is a difference between IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY. As Ron White said, "YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID". In todays information age, ignorance is a choice. ..."
"... The problem is that we have no "Constitution." That is a fable. The constitution of the separation of powers has been undermined from almost day one. Witness the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. ..."
"... Yes sir. Globalization has failed us. The infinite growth paradigm has failed us, as we knew it would. Castro's Cuba, based in a localized agrarian economy, is looking pretty good about now. Localization is the only way back to sustainability. ..."
"... Books? Who said books? You mean reading books? Let me throw a couple out there: I read 'The Image: A Guide To Pseudo-Events In America' last year, it was published 50+ years ago by a very recommended writer and accomplished historian. Boorstin's observations are truer today and even more concerning thanks to our modern, ubiquitous "connectivity". http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/159979.The_Image ..."
"... Adorno famously pointed out in 1940 that the "Mass culture is psychoanalysis in reverse." ..."
"... He doesn't blame the masses because he simply points out the fact that Americans are completely ignorant and blindly believe anything MSM spoon-fed to them. ..."
"... Paul Craig Roberts believe that the people are capable of creating a better and more just society. Instead the people have voted against their own best interest and overwhelmingly believe the propaganda. ..."
"... "... the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise ..." ..."
"... Governments were created by the history of warfare, which was always organized crime developing on larger and larger scales. In the context, the greater problem is that people like Paul Craig Roberts are reactionary revolutionaries, who provide relatively good analysis, followed by bogus "solutions" based upon impossible ideals. ..."
"... The "American People" are the victims of the best scientific brainwashing that money could buy. As Cognitive Dissonance has previously stated on Zero Hedge: "The absolute best controlled opposition is one that doesn't know they are controlled." ..."
"... The article above was another illustration of the ways that the typical reactionary revolutionaries, Black Sheeple, or controlled opposition groups, respond to recognizing the more and more blatant degrees to which there has been an accelerating "transformation of government into a criminal enterprise." THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY CONTINUE TO STAY WITHIN THE SAME OLD-FASHIONED BULLSHIT-BASED FRAME OF REFERENCE, INSTEAD, AROUND AND AROUND WE GO, STUCK IN THE SAME DEEPENING RUTS, since they do NOT more fully "face the facts" regarding how and why the only realistic solutions to the real problems would require developing better organized crime. INSTEAD, they continue to promote the same dualities based upon false fundamental dichotomies, and the associate bogus "solutions" based upon impossible ideals ... ..."
How can the life of such a man
Be in the palm of some fool's hand?
To see him obviously framed
Couldn't help but make me feel ashamed to live in a land
Where justice is a game.-Bob Dylan, "Hurricane"
Attorney John W. Whitehead opens a recent posting on his Rutherford Institute website with these words from a song by Bob Dylan.
Why don't all of us feel ashamed? Why only Bob Dylan?
I wonder how many of Bob Dylan's fans understand what he is telling them. American justice has nothing to do with innocence or
guilt. It only has to do with the prosecutor's conviction rate, which builds his political career. Considering the gullibility of
the American people, American jurors are the last people to whom an innocent defendant should trust his fate. The jury will betray
the innocent almost every time.
As Lawrence Stratton and I show in our book (2000, 2008) there is no justice in America. We titled our book, "How the Law Was
Lost." It is a description of how the protective features in law that made law a shield of the innocent was transformed over time
into a weapon in the hands of the government, a weapon used against the people. The loss of law as a shield occurred prior to 9/11,
which "our representative government" used to construct a police state.
The marketing department of our publisher did not appreciate our title and instead came up with "The Tyranny of Good Intentions."
We asked what this title meant. The marketing department answered that we showed that the war on crime, which gave us the abuses
of RICO, the war on child abusers, which gave us show trials of total innocents that bested Joseph Stalin's show trials of the heroes
of the Bolshevik Revolution, and the war on drugs, which gave "Freedom and Democracy America" broken families and by far the highest
incarceration rate in the world all resulted from good intentions to combat crime, to combat drugs, and to combat child abuse. The
publisher's title apparently succeeded, because 15 years later the book is still in print. It has sold enough copies over these years
that, had the sales occurred upon publication would have made the book a "best seller." The book, had it been a best seller, would
have gained more attention, and perhaps law schools and bar associations could have used it to hold the police state at bay.
Whitehead documents how hard a not guilty verdict is to come by for an innocent defendant. Even if the falsely accused defendant
and his attorney survive the prosecutor's pressure to negotiate a plea bargain and arrive at a trial, they are confronted with jurors
who are unable to doubt prosecutors, police, or witnesses paid to lie against the innocent defendant. Jurors even convicted
the few survivors of the Clinton regime's assault on the Branch Davidians of Waco, the few who were not gassed, shot, or burned to
death by US federal forces. This religious sect was demonized by Washington and the presstitute media as child abusers who were manufacturing
automatic weapons while they raped children. The charges proved to be false, like Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction,"
and so forth, but only after all of the innocents were dead or in prison.
The question is: why do Americans not only sit silently while the lives of innocents are destroyed, but also actually support
the destruction of the lives of innocents? Why do Americans believe "official sources" despite the proven fact that "official sources"
lie repeatedly and never tell the truth?
The only conclusion that one can come to is that the American people have failed. We have failed Justice. We have failed Mercy.
We have failed the US Constitution. We have failed Truth. We have failed Democracy and representative government. We have failed
ourselves and humanity. We have failed the confidence that our Founding Fathers put in us. We have failed God. If we ever had the
character that we are told we had, we have obviously lost it. Little, if anything, remains of the "American character."
Was the American character present in the torture prisons of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and hidden CIA torture dungeons where
US military and CIA personnel provided photographic evidence of their delight in torturing and abusing prisoners? Official reports
have concluded that along with torture went rape, sodomy, and murder. All of this was presided over by American psychologists with
Ph.D. degrees.
We see the same inhumanity in the American police who respond to women children, the elderly, the physically and mentally handicapped,
with gratuitous violence. For no reason whatsoever, police murder, taser, beat, and abuse US citizens. Every day there are more reports,
and despite the reports the violence goes on and on and on. Clearly, the police enjoy inflicting pain and death on citizens whom
the police are supposed to serve and protect. There have always been bullies in the police force, but the wanton police violence
of our time indicates a complete collapse of the American character.
The failure of the American character has had tremendous and disastrous consequences for ourselves and for the world. At home
Americans have a police state in which all Constitutional protections have vanished. Abroad, Iraq and Libya, two formerly prosperous
countries, have been destroyed. Libya no longer exists as a country. One million dead Iraqis, four million displaced abroad, hundreds
of thousands of orphans and birth defects from the American ordnance, and continuing ongoing violence from factions fighting over
the remains. These facts are incontestable. Yet the United States Government claims to have brought "freedom and democracy" to Iraq.
"Mission accomplished," declared one of the mass murderers of the 21st century, George W. Bush.
The question is: how can the US government make such an obviously false outrageous claim without being shouted down by the
rest of the world and by its own population? Is the answer that good character has disappeared from the world?
Or is the rest of the world too afraid to protest? Washington can force supposedly sovereign countries to acquiesce to its
will or be cut off from the international payments mechanism that Washington controls, and/or be sanctioned, and/or be bombed, droned,
or invaded, and/or be assassinated or overthrown in a coup. On the entire planet Earth there are only two countries capable of standing
up to Washington, Russia and China, and neither wants to stand up if they can avoid it.
For whatever the reasons, not only Americans but most of the world as well accommodate Washington's evil and are thereby complicit
in the evil. Those humans with a moral conscience are gradually being positioned by Washington and London as "domestic extremists"
who might have to be rounded up and placed in detention centers. Examine the recent statements by General Wesley Clark and British
Prime Minister Cameron and remember Janet Napolitano's statement that the Department of Homeland Security has shifted its focus from
terrorists to domestic extremists, an undefined and open-ended term.
Americans with good character are being maneuvered into a position of helplessness. As John Whitehead makes clear, the
American people cannot even prevent "their police," paid by their tax payments, from murdering 3 Americans each day, and this is
only the officially reported murders. The actual account is likely higher.
What Whitehead describes and what I have noticed for many years is that the American people have lost, in addition to their own
sense of truth and falsity, any sense of mercy and justice for other peoples. Americans accept no sense of responsibility for the
millions of peoples that Washington has exterminated over the past two decades dating back to the second term of Clinton. Every one
of the millions of deaths is based on a Washington lie.
When Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, was asked if the Clinton's regime's sanctions, which had claimed the
lives of 500,000 Iraqi children, were justified, she obviously expected no outrage from the American people when she replied in the
affirmative.
Americans need to face the facts. The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a
criminal enterprise.
benb
The American people have been scientifically mis-educated, propagandized, and beaten down. A disproportionate number of the
under 30's are societal DOAs thanks to ... weaponized TV. But I am being too optimistic...
PrayingMantis
... Americans are "intentionally ignorant" of other countries' rights and sovereignty while other countries had been well-informed
of America's malicious intents of destroying other countries' rights and sovereignty ...
BarnacleBill
No, I don't think Americans are intentionally ignorant, any more than other nationalities. What they are tribal. Tribal
peoples don't care whether their policies are right or wrong; they are instinctively loyal to them and to those who formulate
them.
Also, I have to say that I believe the US empire is a long, long, way from collapse. It is still expanding, for goodness sake.
Empires collapse only when the shrinking process is well under way. (The recent Soviet Empire was exceptional, in this regard.)
It will take several more generations before the darkness lifts, I'm afraid.
macholatte
The only conclusion that one can come to is that the American people have failed.
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element
in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the
true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely
by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers
of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost
every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking,
we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the
masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."
-- Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda
OldPhart
"Americans need to face the facts. The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government
into a criminal enterprise."
I think that happened August 13, 1971, but didn't get fully organized (as in Mafia) until 2000.
PT
The majority have their nose to the grind stone and as such can not see past the grind stone. They rely on "official sources"
to put the rest of the world in order for them, but have no time to audit the "official sources". Would public education suffer
if mothers and fathers were monitoring what the children were learning? But who has got time for that when both parents are working?
How many non-work organizations were your parents and grand-parents involved in (both the wage-earner and the housekeeper)? How
many organizations are you involved in?
Do you constantly hassle your local politicians or do you just say, "I'll vote 'em out in four years time"? (Yes, I know, you
just don't vote. Fair enough, this question is for the voters.)
Yes, some of us are guilty of not fighting back. We had "Shut up and do as you're told" and "Well, if you're not happy with
what you've got then work harder" beaten into us. Some of us are a little awake because, despite all our efforts, the grind stone
was removed from us and then we got to see the larger picture of what lies behind the grind stone. Others are still busy, nose
to the wheel, and all they see is the wheel.
And that is before we even consider HypnoToad on the Idiot Box. Some "need" the idiot box to help them wind down. Some can
no longer enjoy the silence. (Remember Brave New World? It's true. Many people can no longer stand to be around silence, with
nothing but their own thoughts.) I tell everyone that TV is crap. Radio is crap. Newspapers are crap. Turn that shit off for six
months to a year, then go back to it and see what you really think of it. But they can't handle the thought of being away from
"the background noise".
Ever spoken to grandparents who remember wars and depressions? And even amongst the rations and the hardships they still find
positive memories? Time to talk to them again. Or not. I guess we'll get first-hand experience soon enough.
Allow me for a moment to share a brief anecdote about the new "American Character".
Last Sunday I was at the local supermarket. I was at the bakery counter, when suddenly a nicely dressed, Sunday best, non-Caucasian
woman barrels into my cart riding a fat scooter. She rudely demands from the counter person a single cinnamon bun and then wheels
off towards the front. Curious, I follow her up the aisle as she scarfs down the pastry in three bites. She then proceeds to stuff
the empty bag between some soda bottles and scooters through the checkout without paying for her item. In the parking lot she
then disembarks from her scooter, easily lifts it into the trunk of her Cadillac and walks to the drivers side, gets in and speeds
off with her kids, who were in the back seat.
Amazed at what I had just witnessed, I went back into the store, retrieved the empty bag, included it in my few items at checkout
and then went to the manager to share this story with him. He laughed and said there was nothing he could do.
The new "American Character" is that of a sense of entitlement and apathy.
I weep for the future.
Headbanger
Having character is not politically correct. Plus there's no need to develop character anymore because there's no jobs requiring
any!
Consumption is the ONLY value of the inDUHvidual today.
And the less character they have, the more shit they'll consume to feel fulfilled cause they can't get that from themselves.
clymer Sat, 07/25/2015 - 07:34
Macholatte, i don't think PCR is writing from a point of view that is haughty and contemptful of the American people, per se,
but rather from a perspective that is hopeless and thoroughly depressed after contemplating what the American people of many generations
ago has taken for themselves as natural rights from a tyrranical government, only to see the nation slowly morph into something
even worse than what was rejected by the founders.
"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within...
He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body
politic so that it can no longer resist."
ThroxxOfVron
"The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise. "
"I think that happened August 13, 1971 "
The entirety of the Western Hemisphere, not just 'The United States', was seized by invaders from Europe.
It is not an 'American' disease: it is a European disease and always was.
The indiginous populations of the Western Hemisphere were suystemaically and with forethought expropriated, ensalved, and slaughtered.
The indiginous persons that dwelled within the geographical domain that presently comprise the USA were still being margialized,
forcibly relocated, and murdered, long after the so-called 'American Civil War' had been decided.
...& As much as it is fashionable and/or politically expedient to vilify and blame the 'white' Europeans both for this history
and extenuate that history to inform the present state of affairs, the Dutch, the French, the Portuguese, and the Spanish ( most
eggregiously IMHO) were brutal and savage.
Look at the demographics of the Western Hemisphere.
If you have a shred of honesty you just can't hang the blame on 'whites', put it on a bumper sticker or a #shittyhashtagmeme
and go back to fucking off.
The disgusting fraud of Manifest Destiny was a fig leaf to hide the enormity of these crimes; but, they are most obviously
European crimes.
...& has Europe changed since the West was settled? Did Europeans even stop their warring amonsgst themselves?
Neither in Europe itself, nor in the settled West.
The Pacific Ocean wasn't named for calm waters.
It was named thusly because it is the natural geographic boundary where the mayhem and brutality and genocide ceased, if only
because the greedy and ruthless Europeans had run out of land in the Western Hemisphere with people upon it to plunder and murder...
El Vaquero
The US will collapse within the next decade if some serious new technology is not developed and the infrastructure to use it
is put in. There is too much debt and not enough material resources to continue growing the ponzi scheme that is our monetary
system at an exponential rate without something breaking. The question is, will it be at the end of this boom-bust cycle, or the
next? And if you look at what is being done on the financial front, which is the backbone of our neo-empire, that is shrinking.
The USD is slowly falling out of favor. There will come a point where that rapidly accelerates. We've been in a state of collapse
for 15 years.
Abitdodgie
ignorance is choice these days and Americans love it.
AetosAeros
Not only a choice, but the ONLY choice they are prepared to accept. Cognitive Dissonance at it's finest. And to make matters
worse, in only the best American fashion, we've asked if if it can be Supersized to go along with the Freedom Lies we feed ourselves.
I've seen the enemy, and....
But only if I'm willing to look in the mirror. Today's American doesn't look for what's right there in front of him/her, we
look for all the new 'Social Norms' that we aren't living up to. This article is completely on target, and I hope Roberts hasn't
decided to do any remodeling, cause too many idle nails guns make for a great Evening News sidebar mention.
Damnit all to hell.
Fun Facts
Fun Facts's picture
protocol #1 - Take control of the media and use it in propaganda for our plans
protocol #2 - Start fights between different races, classes and religions
... ... ...
protocol #13 - Use our media to create entertaining distractions
protocol #14 - Corrupt minds with filth and perversion
protocol #15 - Encourage people to spy on one another
Rubicon727
We educators began seeing this shift towards "me-ism" around 1995-6. Students from low to middle income families became either
apathetic towards "education" or followed their parent's sense of "entitlement." Simultaneously, the tech age captured both population's
attention. Respecting "an education" dwindled.
Fast forward to the present: following the 2007-8 crash, we noted clear divisions between low income vs middle/upper class
students based on their school behavior. Low to slightly middle income students brought to school family tensions and the turmoil
of parents losing their jobs. A rise in non-functioning students increase for teachers while the few well performing students
decline significantly.
Significant societal, financial shifts in America can always be observed in the student population.
reader2010
Mission Accomplished.
"When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments,
when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business
a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; a culture-death is a clear possibility."
- Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, 1985
Lea
"The American people have been scientifically mis-educated".
You've got the answer there. The education system is the root cause of the problem. I'm from Europe, but if I've understood
correctly, the US education policy is to teach as little as possible to children, and expect them to fill in the gaps in the Universities,
past a certain age.
Only, it can't work. Children WILL learn, as childhood is the time when most informations are stored. If the schools don't
provide the knowledge, they will get it from the television, movies or games, with the consequences we can see: ignorance, obsession
with TV and movies stars, inability to differentiate life from movies, and over-simplistic reasoning (if any).
In Europe, we knew full well children learn fast and a lot, and that was why the schools focused on teaching them as much general
knowldge as possible before 18 years old, which is when - it is scientifically proved - the human brain learns best.
Recently, the EU leading countries have understood that having educated masses doesn't pay if you want to lead them like sheep,
so they are perfidiously trying to lower the standards... to the dismay of parents.
My advice, if I may presume to give any, would be to you USA people: teach your children what they won't learn at school, history,
geography, literature (US, European and even Asian, why not), a foreign language if you can, arts, music, etc; and keep them away
from the TV, movies and games.
And please adapt what you teach them to their age.
Refuse-Resist
Bang on! One anecdotal example: insisting that all 3rd graders use calculators "to learn" their multiplication tables. If I
didn't do flashcards at home with my kids they wouldn't know them. As somebody who majored in engineering and took many many advanced math courses, I always felt that knowing your 'times tables'
was essential to being successful in math.
What better way to dumb down otherwise intelligent children by creating a situation where the kid can't divide 32 by 4 without
a calculator. Trigonometry? Calculus? Linear Algebra? Fuggedaboudit.
doctor10
The CB's and MIC have Americans right where they want them. the consequences of 3-4 generations of force feeding Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny
ThroxxOfVron
Some of US were never fucking asleep. Some of us were born with our eyes and minds open. We were, and are: hated, and reviled, and marginalized, and disowned for it. The intellectual repression was, and is, fucking insane and brutal. Words such as ethics and logic exist for what purpose? What are these expressions of? A bygone time? Abstractions?
Those that have tried to preserve their self awareness, empathy, and rationality have been ruthlessly systematically demeaned
and condemed for confronting our families, our culture and institutions. We all have a right to be angry and disgusted and distrustful of the people and institutions around us. I am very fucking angry, and disgusted, and distrustful of the people and institutions around me.
But I still have hope. Nothing lasts forever.. This self-righteous nation called The United States, this twisted fraud of a culture called America, is most dangerously overdue
for receipt of chastisment and retribution. It would be best if the citizenry of the United States taught themselves a lesson in stead of inviting Other nations and cultures
to educate them.
A serious self education may be tedious and imperfect; but, it would be far far cheaper than forcing someone to come all the
way over those oceans to educate Americans at the price they will be demanding for those lessons...
I do not require representation. I will speak my own mind and act of my own accord.
Every time other so-called Americans take a shit on me for thinking and speaking and acting differently it is a badge of honor
and a confirmation of my spiritual and intellectual liberty. They don't know it but they are all gonna run out of shit before
I run out of being free.
ThroxxOfVron
"The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise. "
"I think that happened August 13, 1971 "
The entirety of the Western Hemisphere, not just 'The United States', was seized by invaders from Europe. It is not an 'American' disease: it is a European disease and always was.
The indiginous populations of the Western Hemisphere were suystemaically and with forethought expropriated, ensalved, and slaughtered.
The indiginous persons that dwelled within the geographical domain that presently comprise the USA were still being margialized,
forcibly relocated, and murdered, long after the so-called 'American Civil War' had been decided.
...& As much as it is fashionable and/or politically expedient to vilify and blame the 'white' Europeans both for this history
and extenuate that history to inform the present state of affairs, the Dutch, the French, the Portuguese, and the Spanish ( most
eggregiously IMHO) were brutal and savage.
Look at the demographics of the Western Hemisphere. If you have a shred of honesty you just can't hang the blame on 'whites', put it on a bumper sticker or a #shittyhashtagmeme
and go back to fucking off. The disgusting fraud of Manifest Destiny was a fig leaf to hide the enormity of these crimes; but, they are most obviously
European crimes....& has Europe changed since the West was settled? Did Europeans even stop their warring amongst themselves?
See for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe
That would be: Hell NO. Neither in Europe itself, nor in the settled West. The Pacific Ocean wasn't named for calm waters. It was named thusly because it is the natural geographic boundary where the mayhem and brutality and genocide ceased, if only
because the greedy and ruthless Europeans had run out of land in the Western Hemisphere with people upon it to plunder and murder...
Mini-Me
"The loss of character means the loss of liberty and the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise."
I agree with the first part. As for the latter, "government," by definition, is a criminal enterprise. It doesn't start out
pure as the driven snow and then change into something nefarious over time. Its very essence requires the initiation of violence
or its threat. Government without the gun in the ribs is a contradiction.
The fact that those in power got more votes than the losing criminals does not magically morph these people into paragons of
virtue. They are almost without exception thoroughly deranged human beings. Lying is second nature to them. Looting is part of
the job description. Killing is an end to their means: the acquisition and aggrandizement of power over others, no matter how
much death and destruction results.
These people are sick bastards. To expect something virtuous from them after an endless string of wanton slaughter, theft and
abuse, is simply wishful thinking.
Jack Burton
I agree with Paul Craig Roberts. He asks "Why" and "How." Well, Paul, here is my answer. Decades of Public Education and over
50 years of mass media monopoly. In an age where FOX is the top rated News station and CNN is considered liberal? Where kids in
Public school are offered Chocolate milk and frozen pizza for school breakfast before going to class rooms with 30-40 kids. When
Texas political appointees chose school text book content for the nation? A nation where service has ended, replaced with volunteer
soldiers signing up for pay and benefits, instead of just serving as service, like we did in the 70's?
Paul Craig Roberts points out the police war against the people. That comes right from the very top, orders filter down to
street cops. Street Cops are recruited from groups of young men our fathers generation would have labeled mental! But now they
are hired across the board, shaved heads, tatoos, and a code of silence and Cops Above Justice.
Schools
Media
Crazed Cops
And a corporate owned government.
The people have allowed the elites to rule in their place, never bothering to question the two fake candidates we are allowed
to vote for.
Jtrillian
There is a difference between IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY. As Ron White said, "YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID". In todays information age, ignorance is a choice.
Part of the problem that no one is talking about or addressing is the population explosion. And it's not linear. Those who
are the least educated, fully dependent others for their survival (welfare), the most complacent, and often with violent criminal
records are breeding the fastest.
Evolution is not guaranteed. It can be argued that the apathy we experience today is a sign of the human race de-evolving.
It takes a certain amount of cognitive ability to observe and question what is going on.
Further, the society we have created where "60 is the new 40" creates very little time to pay attention to what is going on
in the world. Many people rely on mainstream media which is not really news any more. When six corporations control more than
90% of the news, it's the message of the corporate elite that we are fed. This becomes painfully obvious when you start turning
to other sources for information like social media and independent news. Mainstream media today is full of opinion bias - injecting
opinion as though it were fact. They also appeal to the lowest commmon denominator by focusing on emotionally charged topics and
words rather than boring facts. Finally, the mainstream media is extremely guilty of propaganda by omission, ignoring important
events altogether or only presenting one side of the story as is being done with regard to ISIS, Syria, and Ukraine today. People
who watch the mainstream media have no idea that the US played a significant role in arming ISIS and aided in their rise to power.
They have no idea that it was likely ISIS that used chemical weapons in Syria. They have no idea that the US has propped up real
life neo nazis in high government positions in Ukraine. And they have ignored the continuing Fukushima disaster that is STILL
dumping millions of gallons of radioactive water into the ocean every single day.
To sum up, democracies only work when people pay attention and participate. People are either too stupid, too overworked, are
are looking to the wrong sources for information.
Until we break up mainstream media, remove incentives for those who cannot even care for themselves to stop breeding, and make
fundamental changes to our society that affords people the time to focus on what is happening in the world, it will only get worse.
Much worse.
serotonindumptruck
A dying empire is like a wounded, cornered animal.
It will lash out uncontrollably and without remorse in a futile effort to save itself from certain death.
Enough Already
The problem is that we have no "Constitution." That is a fable. The constitution of the separation of powers has been undermined
from almost day one. Witness the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.
In the centuries since then, there has been no "separation of powers." Marbury v Madison (1803) gave the Supreme Court the
right to "decide" what the "law" was. Although, only in the 20th century did the "Supreme" court really start "legislating" from
the bench.
We're just peons to the Overall Federal Power; the three "separate" parts of the federal government have been in collusion
from the first. But like all empires, this one is in the final stage of collapse; it has just gotten too big.
gswifty
Yes sir. Globalization has failed us. The infinite growth paradigm has failed us, as we knew it would. Castro's Cuba, based
in a localized agrarian economy, is looking pretty good about now. Localization is the only way back to sustainability.
napples
Books? Who said books? You mean reading books? Let me throw a couple out there: I read 'The Image: A Guide To Pseudo-Events In America' last year, it was published 50+ years ago by a very recommended
writer and accomplished historian. Boorstin's observations are truer today and even more concerning thanks to our modern, ubiquitous
"connectivity". http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/159979.The_Image
Another by Boorstin, The Discoverers was my fav, like Bryson's 'Short History' on steroids:
I'm currently trying to fathom all of the historical implications of the claims Menzies is making in his book '1434', where
apparently everything I learned about history is a lie. While he's making a lot of claims(hoping some sticks?) I'm not truly convinced.
It is a very good, believable thought experiment. It almost makes perfect sense given the anglo/euro history of deceit & dishonesty,
but I digress: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Menzies
Adorno famously pointed out in 1940 that the "Mass culture is psychoanalysis in reverse." It takes 75 years for someone
such as PCR to reiterate. He doesn't blame the masses because he simply points out the fact that Americans are completely
ignorant and blindly believe anything MSM spoon-fed to them.
George Orwell once remarked that the average person today is about as naive as was the average person in the Middle Ages. In
the Middle Ages people believed in the authority of their religion, no matter what. Today, we believe in the authority of what
Adorno called Culture Industry and MSM, no matter what. Today we are indeed in another Dark Age
PoasterToaster
"Americans" are not one person. Individuals are not fungible. Reasoning from the "average American" leads to false conclusions.
reader2010
Jacques Derrida says, "The individualism of technological civilization relies precisely on a misunderstanding of the unique
self. It is the individualism of a role and not of a person. In other words it might be called the individualism of a masque or
persona, a character [personnage] and not a person." There are many Americans but they all play the same role in the Pursuit of
Happiness, aka wage slaves, career slaves, debt slaves, information junkies, and passive consumers.
Moccasin
Paul Craig Roberts believe that the people are capable of creating a better and more just society. Instead the people have
voted against their own best interest and overwhelmingly believe the propaganda.
When do the people or the society take responsibility for its greater good or own the crimes of those they put into power?
Blaming the aristocracy or the oligarchs seems like a scapegoat when the people have never stood up to the corruption in a
cohesive or concerted way. imho, After a few generations of abuse and corruption the people need to take responsibility for their
future. I expect that most will just buy into the charade and live the lie, on that basis as a society we are doomed to live in
a corporatocracy fascist state.
Aldous Huxley called it a scientific dictatorship, Edward Bernays referred to us as a herd.
Moccasin
In the USA being white, monied and having the capacity to afford a good education is privileged. To his credit he speaks to
the greater population, the 'average citizen' and not the plutocratic class.
MSorciere
What we have is the result of conditioning and commoditizing a population. The country is filled with consumers, not citizens.
Teach the acquisition of money and goods as the main goal and individualism as the only acceptable social unit. We end up with
a nation of insatiable sociopaths, ruled by power-hungry psychopaths.
Divisive politics, jackbooted authority from the DC scumpond down to the cop on the beat, the constant preaching of the cult
of the individual as a sustitute for true liberty... all of these have served to destroy a sense of community and decentness between
Americans.
The ONLY thing that could threaten the ruling class is a banding together of the people - in large numbers. 'They' have purposefully
and effectively quashed that.
TrulyStupid
Shifting responsibility to the usual suspects is simply a manifestation of the American moral collapse. Man up and do some
self evaluation.
T-NUTZ
"what I have noticed for many years is that the American people have lost, in addition to their own sense of truth and falsity,
any sense of mercy and justice for other peoples"
Unfortunately, Paul, the American people have lost any sense of mercy and justice for their own people.
Painful as it may be, we need to rationally look at US history/society. The nascent US was formed by stealing land from the
native population and using human capital (read African Slaves) to generate wealth (it took a civil war with circa 500K casualties
to stop this- one could argue the US "civil war" never ended). More recently, the US has been almost continuously at war since
1940, we dropped atomic bombs on Japan. Currently, the US/NATO war theater extends from the Levant, to Caspian Basin, Persian
Gulf, China Sea, Indian Ocean, Horn of Africa (Saudi/US war on Yemen), the Maghreb and E Europe and Russian Border.
"... the transformation of government into a criminal enterprise ..."
Governments were created by the history of warfare, which was always organized crime
developing on larger and larger scales. In the context, the greater problem is that people like Paul Craig Roberts are
reactionary revolutionaries, who provide relatively good analysis, followed by bogus "solutions" based upon impossible ideals.
The "American People" are the victims of the best scientific brainwashing that money could buy. As Cognitive Dissonance
has previously stated on Zero Hedge: "The absolute best controlled opposition is one that doesn't know they
are controlled."
It is practically impossible to exaggerate the degree to which that is so, on such profound levels, because of the ways that
most people want to continue to believe that false fundamental dichotomies and impossible ideals are
valid, and should be applied to their problems, despite that those mistaken ideas cause the opposite to happen in the real world,
because those who promote those kinds of false fundamental dichotomies and their related impossible ideals, ARE "controlled
opposition."
Rather, the place to begin would be by recognizing that all human beings and civilizations must necessarily operate as entropic
pumps of energy flows, which necessarily are systems of organized lies operating robberies. Everyone has some power to rob, and
power to kill to back that up. Governments assembled and channeled those powers. There was never a time when governments were
not organized crime. There could never be any time when governments were not organized crime. The only things that exist are the
dynamic equilibria between different systems of organized lies operating robberies. Those dynamic equilibria have become extremely
unbalanced due the degree that the best organized gangs of criminals were able to control their opposition.
Paul Craig Roberts, as well as pretty well all of the rest of the content published on Zero Hedge, are presentations
of various kinds of controlled opposition groups, most of which do not recognize that they are being controlled by the language
that they use, and the philosophy of science that they take for granted. THAT is the greatest failure of the American People,
as well as most of the rest of the people everywhere else. They believe in false fundamental dichotomies, and the related impossible
ideals, and therefore, their bogus "solutions" always necessarily backfire badly, and cause the opposite to happen in the real
world.
After all, the overwhelming vast majority of the American People operate as the controlled opposition to the best organized
gangs of criminals that most control the government of the USA. Therefore, the FAILURES of the American People are far more profound
and problematic than what is superficially presented by guys like Paul Craig Roberts, and also, of course, his suggested bogus
"solutions" are similarly superficial.
The ONLY things which can actually exist are the dynamic equilibrium between different systems of organized lies operating
robberies. The degree to which the American People, as well as most of the rest of the people in the world, FAIL to understand
that is the degree to which they enable the best organized gangs of criminals to control them, due to the vast majority of people
being members of various controlled opposition groups. Controlled opposition always presents relatively superficial analysis of
the political problems, which are superficially correct. However, they then follow that up with similarly superficial "solutions."
Therefore, magical words are bandied about, that express their dualities, through false fundamental dichotomies, and the related
impossible ideals.
Governments must exist because organized crime must exist. Better governments could be achieved through
better organized crime. However, mostly what get presented in the public places are the utter bullshit of the biggest
bullies, who dominate the society because they were the best organized gangs of criminals, who were also able to dominate their
apparent opposition. Therefore, instead of more realistic, better balancing of the dynamic equilibria between different systems
of organized lies operating robberies, we get runaway developments of the best organized gangs of criminals being able to control
governments, whose only apparent opposition is controlled to stay within the same bullshit frame of reference regarding everything
that was actually happening.
The mainline of the FAILURES of the American People have been the ways that the international bankers were able to recapture
control over the American public "money" supply. After that, everything else was leveraged up, through the funding of the political
processes, schools, and mass media, etc., being more and more dominated by that fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting
system. Of course, that FAILURE has now become more than 99% ... Therefore, no political possible ways appear to exist to pull
out of that flaming spiral nose dive, since we have already gone beyond the event horizon into that social black hole.
Most of the content on Zero Hedge which is based upon recognizing that set of problems still acts as controlled opposition
in that regard too. Therefore, the bogus "solutions" here continue to deliberately ignore that money is necessarily measurement
backed by murder. Instead of accepting that, the controlled opposition groups like to promote various kinds of "monetary reforms."
However, meanwhile, we are actually already headed towards the established debt slavery systems having generated debt insanities,
which are going to provoke death insanities.
In that context, the only realistic resolutions to the real problems would necessarily have to be monetary revolutions,
that may emerge out of the future situations, after the runaway debt insanities have provoked death insanities. Indeed, the only
genuine solutions to the problems are to develop different death control systems, to back up different debt control systems, which
must necessarily be done within the context that governments are the biggest forms of organized crime, controlled by the best
organized gangs of criminals.
The various controlled opposition groups do not want to face those social facts. Rather, they continue to want to believe in
the dualities expressed as false fundamental dichotomies and the related impossible ideals, which is their greatest overall FAILURE.
In my view, the article above by Roberts contained a lot of nostalgic nonsense. There was never a time when there
were any governments which were not based on the applications of the principles and methods of organized crime, and there
could never be any time in the future when that could be stopped from being the case.
The greatest FAILURE of the American People, as well as most of the rest of the world's people, has been to become so brainwashed
to believe in the biggest bullies' bullshit world view, that there is no significant opposition that is not controlled by thinking
inside of the box of that bullshit. The government did NOT transform into a criminal enterprise. The government was necessarily
ALWAYS a criminal enterprise. That criminal enterprise has become more and more severely UNBALANCED due to the FAILURE
of the people to understand that they were actually members of an organized crime gang, called their country. Instead, they were
more and more scientifically brainwashed to believe in bullshit about everything, including their country.
The ONLY connection between human laws and the laws of nature is the ability to back up lies with violence. The development
of the government of the USA has been the developed of integrated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence. Those
systems of ENFORCED FRAUDS have been able to become more extremely unbalanced because there is almost nothing which is publicly
significant surrounding that core of organized crime but various controlled opposition groups.
Of course, it seems politically impossible for my recommendations to actually happen within the foreseeable future, as the
current systems of debt slavery drive through debt insanities to become death insanities, but nevertheless, the only theoretically
valid ideas to raise to respond to the real problems would have to based upon a series of intellectual scientific revolutions.
However, since we have apparently run out of time to go through those sorts of paradigm shifts sufficiently, we are stuck in the
deepening ruts of political problems which guys like Roberts correctly present to be the case
... HOWEVER, ROBERTS, LIKE ALMOST EVERYONE ELSE, CONTINUE TO PRESUME UPON DUALITIES, AND THEREFORE,
HAVE THEIR MECHANISMS REGARDING "SOLUTIONS" ABSURDLY BACKWARDS.
Rather, we should start with the concept of SUBTRACTION, which then leads to robbery. We should start with the recognition
that governments are necessarily, by definition, the biggest forms of organized crime. Governments did NOT transform
into being that. Governments were always that. The political problems we have now are due to the best organized gangs
of criminals, which currently are primarily the biggest gangsters, which can rightly be referred to as the banksters, having dominated
all aspects of the funding of politics, enough to capture control over all sociopolitical institutions, so that the American People
would more and more be subjected to the best scientific brainwashing that money could buy, which was built on top of thousands
of years of previous history of Neolithic Civilizations being based on backing up lies with violence.
The runaway systems of ENFORCED FRAUDS, or the integrated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, that more
and more dominate the lives of the American People are due to the applications of the methods of organized crime, and could not
be effectively counter-balanced in any other ways. However, the standing social situation is that there is no publicly significant
opposition that is not controlled to stay within the same frame of reference of the biggest bullies, which is now primarily the
frame of reference of the banksters. Indeed, to the degree to which people's lives are controlled by the monetary system, they
are debt slaves. Moreover, the degree to which they do not understand, and do not want to understand, that money is necessarily
measurement backed by murder, then they think like controlled opposition groups, who have their mechanisms absurdly backwards,
when they turn from their superficial analysis of what the political problems, to then promote their superficial solutions of
those problems.
I AGREE that "Americans need to face the facts." However, those facts are that citizens are members
of an organized crime gang, called their country. "Their" country is currently controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals.
However, there are no genuine resolutions for those problems other than to develop better organized crime. Since the controlled
opposition groups that are publicly significant do not admit any of the deeper levels of the scientific facts regarding human
beings and civilizations operating as entropic pumps of energy flows, but rather, continue to perceive all of that in the most
absurdly backward ways possible, the current dynamic equilibria between the different systems of organized lies operating robberies
continue to become more and more extremely UNBALANCED.
In the case of the article above, Roberts does NOT "face the facts" that governments were
always forms of organized crime, and must necessarily be so, because human beings must live as entropic pumps of energy
flows. Rather, Roberts tends to illustrate how the controlled opposition takes for granted certain magical words and phrases,
such as "Liberty" or "Constitution," that have no adequate operational definitions to connect them to the material
world.
We are living inside of an oxymoronic scientific dictatorship, which has applied the progress in science primarily to become
better at backing up lies with violence, while refusing to allow scientific methods to admit and address how and why that has
been what has actually happened. Therefore, almost all of the language that we use to communicate, as well as almost
all of the philosophy of science that we take for granted, was based on the biggest bullies' bullshit, which is now primarily
manifested as the banksters' bullshit, as that bullshit developed in America to become ENFORCED FRAUDS.
ALL of the various churches, corporations, and countries are necessarily various systems of organized lies operating robberies.
Those which are the biggest now were historically the ones that were the best at doing that. The INTENSE PARADOXES are due to
human systems necessarily being organized lies operating robberies, wherein the greatest social successfulness has been achieved
by those who were the best professional liars and immaculate hypocrites. That flows throughout ALL of the established systems,
which are a core of organized crime, surrounded by controlled opposition groups.
The degree to which the American People, as well as the rest of the world's people, have been more and more scientifically
brainwashed to believe in bullshit about governments in particular, and human beings and civilizations in general, is the degree
to which the established systems based upon ENFORCED FRAUDS are headed towards some series of psychotic breakdowns. For all practical
purposes, it is politically impossible to get enough people to stop acting like incompetent political idiots, and instead start
acting more like competent citizens, because they do not understand, and moreover have been conditioned to not want to understand
that governments are necessarily organized crime.
Roberts ironically illustrated the deeper nature of the political problems that he also shares, when he perceives that governments
have somehow transformed into being criminal enterprise, when governments were always necessarily criminal enterprises.
Similarly, with those who recognize that, but then promote the impossible solutions based upon somehow stopping that
from being the case, which is as absurdly backwards as stopping human beings from operating as entropic pumps of energy
flows, which then also presumes that it would be possible to stop human civilizations from being entropic pumps of energy
flows.
Rather, the deeper sorts of intellectual scientific revolutions that we should go through require becoming much more
critical of the language that we use to communicate with, and more critical about the philosophy of science that we presumed was
correct. Actually, we were collectively brainwashed to believe in the biggest bullies' bullshit, which is as absurdly backwards
as it could possibly be. However, due to the collective FAILURES of people to understand that, as reflected by the ways that the
core of organized crime is surrounded by nothing which is publicly significant than layers of controlled opposition, there are
no reasonable ways to doubt that the established debt slavery systems will continue to drive even worse debt insanities, which
will provoke much worse death insanities. Therefore, to be more realistic about the foreseeable future, the development of new
death control systems will emerge out of the context of crazy collapses into chaos, wherein the runaway death insanities provide
the possible opportunities for new death controls to emerge out of that situation.
Of course, the about 99% FAILURE of the American People to want to understand anything that I have outlined above
indicates that the foreseeable future for subsequent generations shall not too likely be catalyzed transformations
towards enough people better understanding their political problems, in order to better resolve those problems. Rather, what I
mostly expect is for the psychotic breakdowns of the previous systems of ENFORCED FRAUDS to give opportunities to some possible
groups of controlled opposition to take advantage of that, to perhaps emerge as the new version of professional liars and immaculate
hypocrites, who will be able to operate some new version of organized lies, operating robberies, who may mostly still get away
with being some modified versions of still oxymoronic scientific dictatorship, due to social success still being based upon the
best available professional liars and immaculate hypocrites, who were able to survive through those transformations, so that the
new systems arise from some of the seeds of the old systems.
At the present time, it is extremely difficult to imagine how the human species could possibly reconcile progress in
physical science by surpassing that with progress in political science. Rather, what mostly exists now is the core of
organized crime, which gets away with spouting the bullshit about itself, such as how the banksters dominate the mass media, and
the lives of everyone else who depend upon the established monetary system (which is dominated by the current ways that governments
ENFORCE FRAUDS by privately controlled banks), while that core of organized crime has no publicly significant opposition that
is not controlled by the ways that they think, which ways stay within the basic bullshit world view, as promoted by the biggest
bullies for thousands of years, and as more and more scientifically promoted to brainwash the vast majority of people to believe
in that kind of bullshit so completely that it mostly does not occur to them that they are doing that, and certainly almost never
occurs to them that they are doing that in the most profoundly absurd and backward ways possible.
That is how and why it is possible for an author like Roberts to correctly point out the ways in which the government of the
USA is transforming into being more blatantly based on organized crime ... HOWEVER, Roberts is not willing and able to go through
deeper levels of intellectual scientific revolutions, in order to recognize how and why governments were always necessarily manifestations
of organized crime. Therefore, as is typically the case, Roberts does not recognize how ironically he recommends that Americans
should "face the facts," while he himself does not fully do so.
The whole history of Neolithic Civilizations was social pyramid systems based on being able to back up lies with violence,
becoming more sophisticated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, which currently manifest as the globalized
electronic frauds of the banksters, were are backed up by the governments (that those banksters effectively control) having atomic
bombs. Those are the astronomically amplified magnitudes of the currently existing combined money/murder systems. Therefore, it
appears to be politically impossible at the present time to develop better governments, due to the degree that almost everyone
is either a member of the core groups of organized crime, or members of the surrounding layers of groups of controlled opposition,
both of which want to stay within the same overall bullshit frame of reference, because, so far, their lives have been socially
successful by being professional liars and immaculate hypocrites.
Ironically, I doubt that someone like Roberts, or pretty well everyone else whose material is published on Zero Hedge
is able and willing to recognize the degree to which they are actually controlled opposition. Indeed, even more ironically, as
I have repeated before, even Cognitive Dissonance, when he previously stated on Zero Hedge:"The
absolute best controlled opposition is one that doesn't know they are controlled." DOES NOT "GET IT" regarding the
degree to which he too is controlled opposition, even while superficially attempting to recognize and struggle with that situation.
(Indeed, of course, that includes me too, since I am still communicating using the English language, which was the natural language
that most developed to express the biggest bullies' bullshit world view.)
Overall, I REPEAT, the deeper problems are due to progress in physical science, NOT being surpassed by progress in
political science. Instead, while there EXIST globalized electronic frauds, backed by atomic bombs, practically nothing
regarding the ways of thinking that made that science and those technologies possible has found any significant expression through
political science, because political science would have to go through even more profound paradigm shifts within itself in order
to do that.
The INTENSE PARADOXES continue to be the manifestation of the oxymoronic scientific dictatorship, that deliberately refuses
to become any more genuinely scientific about itself. Therefore, the banksters have been able to pay for the best scientific brainwashing
that money could buy, for generation after generation, in order to more and more brainwash most of the American People to believe
in the banksters' bullshit world view. While there exist electronic frauds, backed by atomic bombs, practically nothing regarding
the physical science paradigm shifts that made that possible have even the slightest degree of public appreciation within the
realms of politics today, which are almost totally dominated by the biggest bullies' bullshit world view, despite that being as
absurdly backwards as possible, while the controlled opposition groups, mostly in the form of old-fashioned religions and ideologies,
continue to stay within that same bullshit world view, and adamantly refuse to change their perceptual paradigms regarding political
problems.
However, I REPEAT, the issues we face are NOT that governments have transformed to become criminal enterprises,
but that governments were always necessarily criminal enterprises, which had the power to legalized their own lies, and
then back those lies up with legalized violence. Thereby, the best organized criminals, the international bankers, as
the biggest gangsters, or the banksters, were able to apply the methods of organized crime through the political processes. Meanwhile,
the only "opposition" that was allowed to be publicly significant was controlled, to basically stay within the same bullshit world
view, which is what Roberts has done in his series of articles, as well as what is almost always presented in the content published
on Zero Hedge.
The NEXT LEVEL of "the need to face the facts" is to recognize that the political economy is based
upon ENFORCED FRAUDS, or systems of debt slavery backed by wars based on deceits. However, the NEXT LEVEL "the need
to face the facts" is the that the only possible changes are to change the dynamic equilibria between the different
systems of organized lies operating robberies, i.e., change those ENFORCED FRAUDS, in ways which CAN NOT STOP
THOSE FROM STILL BEING ENFORCED FRAUDS, because of the degree to which money is necessarily measurement backed by murder.
For the American People, as well as the rest of the world's people, to stop being such dismal FAILURES would require them to
become more competent citizens. However, at the present time they appear to be totally unable to do that, because they are unwilling
to go through the profound paradigm shifts that it would take them to become more competent citizens inside of world where there
exist globalized electronic frauds, backed by atomic bombs. The vast majority of the American People would not like
to go through the severe cognitive dissonance that would be required, to not only recognize that "their" government was a criminal
enterprise, but that it also must be, and that they too must necessarily be members of that organized crime gang. However, without
that degree of perceptual paradigm shifts of the political problems, then enough of the American People could not become more
competent citizens.
Somehow, most people continue to count on themselves never having to think about how and why progress was achieved in physical
science, by going through series of profound paradigm shifts in the ways that we perceived the world. Most people continue to
presume that it is not necessary for their perception of politics to go through profound paradigm shifts, that surpass those which
have already been achieved in physical science. We continue to live in an oxymoronic scientific dictatorship, that employs science
and technology to become better at being dishonest and violent, but does not apply science and technology to "face
the facts" about that scientific dictatorship as a whole.
At the present time, technologies which have become trillions of times more capable and powerful are primarily used as special effects within the context of repeating the same old-fashioned, stupid social stories, such as promoted by the biggest
bullies, and their surrounding controlled opposition groups. Ironically, especially when it comes to politics, that tends to manifest
the most atavistic throwbacks to old-fashioned religions and ideologies being relied upon to propose bogus "solutions," despite
that those kinds of social stories adamantly refuse to change their paradigms in light of the profound paradigms shifts which
have been achieved in physical science.
The article above was another illustration of the ways that the typical reactionary revolutionaries, Black Sheeple, or controlled
opposition groups, respond to recognizing the more and more blatant degrees to which there has been an accelerating "transformation of government into a criminal enterprise." THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY CONTINUE TO STAY WITHIN
THE SAME OLD-FASHIONED BULLSHIT-BASED FRAME OF REFERENCE, INSTEAD, AROUND AND AROUND WE GO, STUCK IN
THE SAME DEEPENING RUTS, since they do NOT more fully "face the facts" regarding how and why the only
realistic solutions to the real problems would require developing better organized crime. INSTEAD, they
continue to promote the same dualities based upon false fundamental dichotomies, and the associate bogus "solutions" based upon
impossible ideals ...
Given that overall situation, that there there almost nothing which is publicly significant than the core of organized crime,
surrounded by controlled opposition groups, I see no reasonable hopes for the foreseeable material future of a civilization controlled
by ENFORCED FRAUDS, since there is no publicly possible ways to develop better dynamic equilibria between the different systems
of organized lies operating robberies, since the biggest forms of doing that were most able to get away with pretending that they
are not doing that, which was facilitated by their controlled opposition promoting the opinions that nobody should do that, while
actually everyone must be doing that.
Roberts' article above, to me, was another typical example of superficially correct analysis, which implies some bogus "solutions"
because those are based upon the same superficiality. It is NOT good enough to recognize "transformation of government
into a criminal enterprise," unless one goes through deeper levels of analysis regarding how and why that is what
actually exists, and then, one should continue to be consistent with that deeper analysis when one turns to proposing genuine
solutions to those problems, namely, I REPEAT THAT the only realistic resolutions to the real political
problems requires the transformation of government into a better organized criminal enterprise, which
ideally should be based upon enough citizens who are competent enough to understand that they are members of an organized crime
gang, which should assert themselves to make sure that their country becomes better organized crime.
Nationalism really represent a growing threat to neoliberalism. It is clear the the rise of
nationalism was caused by the triumph of neoliberalism all over the globe. As neoliberal
ideology collapsed in 2008, thing became really interesting now. Looks like
1920th-1940th will be replayed on a new level with the USA neoliberal empire under stress from
new challengers instead of British empire.
Rumor about the death of neoliberalism are slightly exaggerated ;-). This social system still
has a lot of staying power. you need some external shock like the need of cheap oil (defined as
sustainable price of oil over $100 per barrel) to shake it again. Of some financial crisis similar
to the crisis of 2008. Currently there is still
no alternative social order that can replace it. Collapse of the USSR discredited both socialism even
of different flavors then was practiced in the USSR. National socialism would be a step back from
neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... The retreat of [neo]liberalism is very visible in Asia. All Southeast Asian states have turned their backs on liberal democracy, especially Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar in the last decade. This NYT article notes that liberalism has essentially died in Japan, and that all political contests are now between what the west would consider conservatives: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/liberalism-japan-election.html ..."
"... What is today called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" both are simply corrupted labels applied to the same top-down corporate-fascistic elite rule that I think Mr. Buchanan once referred to as "two wings of the same bird of prey." ..."
"... Nobody at the top cares about 'diversity.' They care about the easy profits that come from ever cheaper labor. 'Diversity' is not suicide but rather murder: instigated by a small number of very powerful people who have decided that the long-term health of their nations and civilization is less important than short-term profits and power. ..."
"... Hillary and Obama are to the right of the President that Buchanan served in his White House. Richard Nixon was to the Left of both Hillary and Obama. I can't even imagine Hillary accepting and signing into law a 'Clean Water Act' or enacting Price Controls to fight inflation. No way. Heck would freeze over before Hillary would do something so against her Banker Backers. ..."
"... It's sure that financial (neo)liberalism was in a growth phase prior to year 2000 (under Greenspan, the "Maestro") with a general belief that the economy could be "fine tuned" with risk eliminated using sophisticated financial instruments, monetary policy etc. ..."
"... If [neo] Liberalism is a package, then two heavy financial blows that shook the whole foundation were the collapse of the dot.com bubble (2000) and the mortgage bubble (2008). ..."
"... And, other (self-serving) neoliberal stories are now seen as false. For example, that the US is an "advanced post-industrial service economy", that out-sourcing would "free up Americans for higher skilled/higher wage employment" or that "the US would always gain from tariff free trade". ..."
"... The basic divide is surely Nationalism (America First) vs. Globalism (Neo-Liberalism), as shown by the last US Presidential election. ..."
"... Neoliberalism, of which the Clintons are acolytes, supports Free Trade and Open Borders. Although it claims to support World Government, in actual fact it supports corporatism. This is explicit in the TPPA Trump vetoed. Under the corporate state, the state controls the corporations, as Don Benito did in Italy. Under corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do, as has been the case in America since at least the Clinton Presidency. ..."
"... But I recall that Pat B also said neoconservatism was on its way out a few years after Iraq war II and yet it's stronger than ever and its adherents are firmly ensconced in the joint chiefs of staff, the pentagon, Congress and the White House. It's also spawned a close cousin in liberal interventionism. ..."
Asked to name the defining attributes of the America we wish to become, many liberals would answer
that we must realize our manifest destiny since 1776, by becoming more equal, more diverse and more
democratic -- and the model for mankind's future.
Equality, diversity, democracy -- this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state
at whose altars Liberal Man worships.
But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking. And even Europe seems to be rejecting
what America has on offer.
In a retreat from diversity, Catalonia just voted to separate from Spain. The Basque and Galician
peoples of Spain are following the Catalan secession crisis with great interest.
The right-wing People's Party and far-right Freedom Party just swept 60 percent of Austria's vote,
delivering the nation to 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz, whose anti-immigrant platform was plagiarized
from the Freedom Party. Summarized it is: Austria for the Austrians!
Lombardy, whose capital is Milan, and Veneto will vote Sunday for greater autonomy from Rome.
South Tyrol (Alto Adige), severed from Austria and ceded to Italy at Versailles, written off by
Hitler to appease Mussolini after his Anschluss, is astir anew with secessionism. Even the Sicilians
are talking of separation.
By Sunday, the Czech Republic may have a new leader, billionaire Andrej Babis. Writes The Washington
Post, Babis "makes a sport of attacking the European Union and says NATO's mission is outdated."
Platform Promise: Keep the Muslim masses out of the motherland.
To ethnonationalists, their countrymen are not equal to all others, but superior in rights. Many
may nod at Thomas Jefferson's line that "All men are created equal," but they no more practice that
in their own nations than did Jefferson in his
... ... ...
European peoples and parties are today using democratic means to achieve "illiberal" ends. And
it is hard to see what halts the drift away from liberal democracy toward the restrictive right.
For in virtually every nation, there is a major party in opposition, or a party in power, that holds
deeply nationalist views.
European elites may denounce these new parties as "illiberal" or fascist, but it is becoming apparent
that it may be liberalism itself that belongs to yesterday. For more and more Europeans see the invasion
of the continent along the routes whence the invaders came centuries ago, not as a manageable problem
but an existential crisis.
To many Europeans, it portends an irreversible alteration in the character of the countries their
grandchildren will inherit, and possibly an end to their civilization. And they are not going to
be deterred from voting their fears by being called names that long ago lost their toxicity from
overuse.
And as Europeans decline to celebrate the racial, ethnic, creedal and cultural diversity extolled
by American elites, they also seem to reject the idea that foreigners should be treated equally in
nations created for their own kind.
Europeans seem to admire more, and model their nations more, along the lines of the less diverse
America of the Eisenhower era, than on the polyglot America of 2017.
And Europe seems to be moving toward immigration polices more like the McCarran-Walter Act of
1950 than the open borders bill that Sen. Edward Kennedy shepherded through the Senate in 1965.
Kennedy promised that the racial and ethnic composition of the America of the 1960s would not
be overturned, and he questioned the morality and motives of any who implied that it would.
Liberalism is the naivete of 18th century elites, no different than today. Modernity as you
know it is unsustainable, mostly because equality isn't real, identity has value for most humans,
pluralism is by definition fractious, and deep down most people wish to follow a wise strongman
leader who represents their interests first and not a vague set of universalist values.
Blind devotion to liberal democracy is another one of those times when white people take an
abstract concept to weird extremes. It is short-sighted and autistically narrow minded. Just because
you have an oppressive king doesn't mean everyone should be equals. Just because there was slavery/genocide
doesn't mean diversity is good.
The retreat of [neo]liberalism is very visible in Asia. All Southeast Asian states have turned their
backs on liberal democracy, especially Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar in the last decade.
This NYT article notes that liberalism has essentially died in Japan, and that all political contests
are now between what the west would consider conservatives:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/liberalism-japan-election.html
Good riddance. The idea that egalitarianism is more advanced than hierarchy has always been
false, and flies against the long arc of history. Time for nationalists around the world to smash
liberal democracy and build a new modernity based on actual humanism, with respect to hierarchies
and the primacy of majorities instead of guilt and pathological compassion dressed up as political
ideology.
"Liberalism" is not dying. "Liberalism" is dead, and has been since at least 1970.
What is today called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" both are simply corrupted labels applied
to the same top-down corporate-fascistic elite rule that I think Mr. Buchanan once referred to
as "two wings of the same bird of prey."
Nobody at the top cares about 'diversity.' They care about the easy profits that come from
ever cheaper labor. 'Diversity' is not suicide but rather murder: instigated by a small number
of very powerful people who have decided that the long-term health of their nations and civilization
is less important than short-term profits and power.
Its been dead for nearly 20 years now. Liberalism has long been the Monty Python parrot nailed
to its perch. At this point, the term is mainly kept alive in right-wing attacks by people who
lack the imagination to change their habitual targets for so long.
To my eye, the last 'liberal' politician died in a susupicious plane crash in 2000 as the Bush
Republicans were taking the White House by their famous 5-4 vote/coup and also needed to claim
control of the Senate. So, the last authentic 'liberal' Senator, Paul Wellstone of MN was killed
in a suspicious plane crash that was never properly explained.
Hillary and Obama are to the right of the President that Buchanan served in his White House.
Richard Nixon was to the Left of both Hillary and Obama. I can't even imagine Hillary accepting
and signing into law a 'Clean Water Act' or enacting Price Controls to fight inflation. No way.
Heck would freeze over before Hillary would do something so against her Banker Backers.
And, at the root, that is the key. The 'Liberals' that the right now rails against are strongly
backed and supported by the Wall Street Banks and other corporate leaders. The 'Liberals' have
pushed for a government Of the Bankers, By the Bankers and For the Bankers. The 'Liberals' now
are in favor of Endless Unconstitutional War around the world.
Which can only mean that the term 'Liberal' has been so completely morphed away from its original
meanings to be completely worthless.
The last true Liberal in American politics was Paul Wellstone. And even by the time he died
for his sins, he was calling himself a "progressive" because after the Clintons and the Gores
had so distorted the term Liberal it was meaningless. Or it had come to mean a society ruled by
bankers, a society at constant war and throwing money constantly at a gigantic war machine, a
society of censorship where the government needed to control all music lyrics, the same corrupt
government where money could by anything from a night in the Lincoln Bedroom to a Presidential
Pardon or any other government favor.
Thus, 'Liberals' were a dead movement even by 2000, when the people who actually believed in
the American People over the profits of bankers were calling themselves Progressives in disgust
at the misuse of the term Liberal. And now, Obama and Hillary have trashed and distorted even
the term Progressive into bombing the world 365 days a year and still constantly throwing money
at the military machine and the problems it invents.
So, Liberalism is so long dead that if you exumed the grave you'd only find dust. And Pat must
be getting senile and just throwing back out the same lines he once wrote as a speechwriter for
the last Great Lefty President Richard Nixon.
Another question is whether this is wishful thinking from Pat or some kind of reality.
I think that he's right, that Liberalism is a dying faith, and it's interesting to check the
decline.
It's sure that financial (neo)liberalism was in a growth phase prior to year 2000 (under
Greenspan, the "Maestro") with a general belief that the economy could be "fine tuned" with risk
eliminated using sophisticated financial instruments, monetary policy etc.
If [neo] Liberalism is a package, then two heavy financial blows that shook the whole foundation
were the collapse of the dot.com bubble (2000) and the mortgage bubble (2008).
And, other (self-serving) neoliberal stories are now seen as false. For example, that the
US is an "advanced post-industrial service economy", that out-sourcing would "free up Americans
for higher skilled/higher wage employment" or that "the US would always gain from tariff free
trade".
In fact, the borderless global "world is flat" dogma is now seen as enabling a rootless hyper-rich
global elite to draw on a sea of globalized serf labour with little or no identity, while their
media and SWJ activists operate a scorched earth defense against any sign of opposition.
The basic divide is surely Nationalism (America First) vs. Globalism (Neo-Liberalism),
as shown by the last US Presidential election.
A useful analogy might be Viktor Orbán. He started out as a leader of a liberal party, Fidesz,
but then over time started moving to the right. It is often speculated that he started it for
cynical reasons, like seeing how the right was divided and that there was essentially a vacuum
there for a strong conservative party, but there's little doubt he totally internalized it. There's
also little doubt (and at the time he and a lot of his fellow party leaders talked about it a
lot) that as he (they) started a family and having children, they started to realize how conservatism
kinda made more sense than liberalism.
With Kurz, there's the possibility for this path. However, he'd need to start a family soon
for that to happen. At that age Orbán was already married with children
Neoliberalism, of which the Clintons are acolytes, supports Free Trade and Open Borders.
Although it claims to support World Government, in actual fact it supports corporatism. This is
explicit in the TPPA Trump vetoed. Under the corporate state, the state controls the corporations,
as Don Benito did in Italy. Under corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do, as
has been the case in America since at least the Clinton Presidency.
Richard Nixon was a capitalist, not a corporatist. He was a supporter of proper competition
laws, unlike any President since Clinton. Socially, he was interventionist, though this may have
been to lessen criticism of his Vietnam policies. Anyway, his bussing and desegregation policies
were a long-term failure.
Price Control was quickly dropped, as it was in other Western countries. Long term Price Control,
as in present day Venezuela, is economically disastrous.
Let's hope liberalism is a dying faith and that is passes from the Western world. If not it will
destroy the West, so if it doesn't die a natural death then we must euthanize it. For the evidence
is in and it has begat feminism, anti-white racism, demographic winter, mass third world immigration
and everything else that ails the West and has made it the sick and dying man of the world.
But I recall that Pat B also said neoconservatism was on its way out a few years after
Iraq war II and yet it's stronger than ever and its adherents are firmly ensconced in the joint
chiefs of staff, the pentagon, Congress and the White House. It's also spawned a close cousin
in liberal interventionism.
What Pat refers to as "liberalism" is now left wing totalitarianism and anti-white hatred and
it's fanatically trying to remain relevant by lashing out and blacklisting, deplatforming, demonetizing,
and physically assaulting all of its enemies on the right who are gaining strength much to their
chagrin. They resort to these methods because they can't win an honest debate and in a true free
marketplace of ideas they lose.
"... My predecessor Benedict XVI likewise proposed "eliminating the structural causes of the dysfunctions of the world economy and correcting models of growth which have proved incapable of ensuring respect for the environment". [10] He observed that the world cannot be analyzed by isolating only one of its aspects, since "the book of nature is one and indivisible", and includes the environment, life, sexuality, the family, social relations, and so forth. It follows that "the deterioration of nature is closely connected to the culture which shapes human coexistence" ..."
"... Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet, for "inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage", we are called to acknowledge "our contribution, smaller or greater, to the disfigurement and destruction of creation". [14] He has repeatedly stated this firmly and persuasively, challenging us to acknowledge our sins against creation: "For human beings to destroy the biological diversity of God's creation; for human beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes in its climate, by stripping the earth of its natural forests or destroying its wetlands; for human beings to contaminate the earth's waters, its land, its air, and its life – these are sins". [15] For "to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God". [16] ..."
"... He asks us to replace consumption with sacrifice, greed with generosity, wastefulness with a spirit of sharing, an asceticism which "entails learning to give, and not simply to give up. It is a way of loving, of moving gradually away from what I want to what God's world needs. It is liberation from fear, greed and compulsion". ..."
"... It is possible that we do not grasp the gravity of the challenges now before us. "The risk is growing day by day that man will not use his power as he should"; in effect, "power is never considered in terms of the responsibility of choice which is inherent in freedom" since its "only norms are taken from alleged necessity, from either utility or security". [85] But human beings are not completely autonomous. Our freedom fades when it is handed over to the blind forces of the unconscious, of immediate needs, of self-interest, and of violence. In this sense, we stand naked and exposed in the face of our ever-increasing power, lacking the wherewithal to control it. We have certain superficial mechanisms, but we cannot claim to have a sound ethics, a culture and spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and teaching clear-minded self-restraint. ..."
"... Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational. This has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth's goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry beyond every limit. It is the false notion that "an infinite quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible to renew them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily absorbed". ..."
"... We have to accept that technological products are not neutral, for they create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping social possibilities along the lines dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups. Decisions which may seem purely instrumental are in reality decisions about the kind of society we want to build. ..."
"... Technology tends to absorb everything into its ironclad logic, and those who are surrounded with technology "know full well that it moves forward in the final analysis neither for profit nor for the well-being of the human race", that "in the most radical sense of the term power is its motive – a lordship over all". [87] As a result, "man seizes hold of the naked elements of both nature and human nature". [88] Our capacity to make decisions, a more genuine freedom and the space for each one's alternative creativity are diminished. ..."
"... At the same time, we have "a sort of 'superdevelopment' of a wasteful and consumerist kind which forms an unacceptable contrast with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation", [90] while we are all too slow in developing economic institutions and social initiatives which can give the poor regular access to basic resources. We fail to see the deepest roots of our present failures, which have to do with the direction, goals, meaning and social implications of technological and economic growth. ..."
"... The specialization which belongs to technology makes it difficult to see the larger picture. The fragmentation of knowledge proves helpful for concrete applications, and yet it often leads to a loss of appreciation for the whole, for the relationships between things, and for the broader horizon, which then becomes irrelevant. ..."
"... It becomes difficult to pause and recover depth in life. If architecture reflects the spirit of an age, our megastructures and drab apartment blocks express the spirit of globalized technology, where a constant flood of new products coexists with a tedious monotony. Let us refuse to resign ourselves to this, and continue to wonder about the purpose and meaning of everything. Otherwise we would simply legitimate the present situation and need new forms of escapism to help us endure the emptiness. ..."
"... All of this shows the urgent need for us to move forward in a bold cultural revolution. Science and technology are not neutral; from the beginning to the end of a process, various intentions and possibilities are in play and can take on distinct shapes. Nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age, but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way, to appropriate the positive and sustainable progress which has been made, but also to recover the values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained delusions of grandeur. ..."
"... Modern anthropocentrism has paradoxically ended up prizing technical thought over reality, since "the technological mind sees nature as an insensate order, as a cold body of facts, as a mere 'given', as an object of utility, as raw material to be hammered into useful shape; it views the cosmos similarly as a mere 'space' into which objects can be thrown with complete indifference" ..."
"... Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble ..."
"... This situation has led to a constant schizophrenia, wherein a technocracy which sees no intrinsic value in lesser beings coexists with the other extreme, which sees no special value in human beings. But one cannot prescind from humanity ..."
"... Nor must the critique of a misguided anthropocentrism underestimate the importance of interpersonal relations. If the present ecological crisis is one small sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity, we cannot presume to heal our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships. ..."
"... The culture of relativism is the same disorder which drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others as mere objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts. The same kind of thinking leads to the sexual exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests. ..."
"... We are convinced that "man is the source, the focus and the aim of all economic and social life". [100] Nonetheless, once our human capacity for contemplation and reverence is impaired, it becomes easy for the meaning of work to be misunderstood. [101] We need to remember that men and women have "the capacity to improve their lot, to further their moral growth and to develop their spiritual endowments". [102] Work should be the setting for this rich personal growth, where many aspects of life enter into play: creativity, planning for the future, developing our talents, living out our values, relating to others ..."
"... it is essential that "we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone", [103] no matter the limited interests of business and dubious economic reasoning. ..."
"... We were created with a vocation to work. The goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replace human work, for this would be detrimental to humanity. Work is a necessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth, human development and personal fulfilment. Helping the poor financially must always be a provisional solution in the face of pressing needs. The broader objective should always be to allow them a dignified life through work. ..."
"... The loss of jobs also has a negative impact on the economy "through the progressive erosion of social capital: the network of relationships of trust, dependability, and respect for rules, all of which are indispensable for any form of civil coexistence". [104] In other words, "human costs always include economic costs, and economic dysfunctions always involve human costs". [105] To stop investing in people, in order to gain greater short-term financial gain, is bad business for society. ..."
"... In order to continue providing employment, it is imperative to promote an economy which favours productive diversity and business creativity. For example, there is a great variety of small-scale food production systems which feed the greater part of the world's peoples, using a modest amount of land and producing less waste, be it in small agricultural parcels, in orchards and gardens, hunting and wild harvesting or local fishing. Economies of scale, especially in the agricultural sector, end up forcing smallholders to sell their land or to abandon their traditional crops. ..."
"... To ensure economic freedom from which all can effectively benefit, restraints occasionally have to be imposed on those possessing greater resources and financial power. To claim economic freedom while real conditions bar many people from actual access to it, and while possibilities for employment continue to shrink, is to practise a doublespeak which brings politics into disrepute. Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving our world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the areas in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good. ..."
6. My predecessor Benedict XVI likewise proposed
"eliminating the structural causes of the dysfunctions of the world economy and correcting models of growth which have proved incapable
of ensuring respect for the environment".[10]
He observed that the world cannot be analyzed by isolating only one of its aspects, since "the book of nature is one and indivisible",
and includes the environment, life, sexuality, the family, social relations, and so forth. It follows that "the deterioration of
nature is closely connected to the culture which shapes human coexistence".[11]
Pope Benedict asked us to recognize that the natural environment has been gravely damaged by our irresponsible behaviour. The social
environment has also suffered damage. Both are ultimately due to the same evil: the notion that there are no indisputable truths
to guide our lives, and hence human freedom is limitless. We have forgotten that "man is not only a freedom which he creates for
himself. Man does not create himself. He is spirit and will, but also nature".[12]
With paternal concern, Benedict urged us to realize that creation is harmed "where we ourselves have the final word, where everything
is simply our property and we use it for ourselves alone. The misuse of creation begins when we no longer recognize any higher instance
than ourselves, when we see nothing else but ourselves".[13]
United by the same concern
7. These statements of the Popes echo the reflections of numerous scientists, philosophers, theologians and civic groups, all
of which have enriched the Church's thinking on these questions. Outside the Catholic Church, other Churches and Christian communities
– and other religions as well – have expressed deep concern and offered valuable reflections on issues which all of us find disturbing.
To give just one striking example, I would mention the statements made by the beloved Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, with whom
we share the hope of full ecclesial communion.
8. Patriarch Bartholomew has spoken in particular of the need for each of us to repent of the ways we have harmed the planet,
for "inasmuch as we all generate small ecological damage", we are called to acknowledge "our contribution, smaller or greater, to
the disfigurement and destruction of creation".[14]
He has repeatedly stated this firmly and persuasively, challenging us to acknowledge our sins against creation: "For human beings
to destroy the biological diversity of God's creation; for human beings to degrade the integrity of the earth by causing changes
in its climate, by stripping the earth of its natural forests or destroying its wetlands; for human beings to contaminate the earth's
waters, its land, its air, and its life – these are sins".[15]
For "to commit a crime against the natural world is a sin against ourselves and a sin against God".[16]
9. At the same time, Bartholomew has drawn attention to the ethical and spiritual roots of environmental problems, which require
that we look for solutions not only in technology but in a change of humanity; otherwise we would be dealing merely with symptoms.
He asks us to replace consumption with sacrifice, greed with generosity, wastefulness with a spirit of sharing, an asceticism
which "entails learning to give, and not simply to give up. It is a way of loving, of moving gradually away from what I want to what
God's world needs. It is liberation from fear, greed and compulsion".[17]
As Christians, we are also called "to accept the world as a sacrament of communion, as a way of sharing with God and our neighbours
on a global scale. It is our humble conviction that the divine and the human meet in the slightest detail in the seamless garment
of God's creation, in the last speck of dust of our planet".[18]
... ... ...
I. TECHNOLOGY: CREATIVITY AND POWER
... ... ...
105. There is a tendency to believe that every increase in power means "an increase of 'progress' itself", an advance in "security,
usefulness, welfare and vigour; an assimilation of new values into the stream of culture",[83]
as if reality, goodness and truth automatically flow from technological and economic power as such. The fact is that "contemporary
man has not been trained to use power well",[84]
because our immense technological development has not been accompanied by a development in human responsibility, values and conscience.
Each age tends to have only a meagre awareness of its own limitations. It is possible that we do not grasp the gravity of the
challenges now before us. "The risk is growing day by day that man will not use his power as he should"; in effect, "power is never
considered in terms of the responsibility of choice which is inherent in freedom" since its "only norms are taken from alleged necessity,
from either utility or security".[85]
But human beings are not completely autonomous. Our freedom fades when it is handed over to the blind forces of the unconscious,
of immediate needs, of self-interest, and of violence. In this sense, we stand naked and exposed in the face of our ever-increasing
power, lacking the wherewithal to control it. We have certain superficial mechanisms, but we cannot claim to have a sound ethics,
a culture and spirituality genuinely capable of setting limits and teaching clear-minded self-restraint.
II. THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE TECHNOCRATIC PARADIGM
106. The basic problem goes even deeper: it is the way that humanity has taken up technology and its development according
to an undifferentiated and one-dimensional paradigm. This paradigm exalts the concept of a subject who, using logical and rational
procedures, progressively approaches and gains control over an external object. This subject makes every effort to establish the
scientific and experimental method, which in itself is already a technique of possession, mastery and transformation. It is as if
the subject were to find itself in the presence of something formless, completely open to manipulation. Men and women have constantly
intervened in nature, but for a long time this meant being in tune with and respecting the possibilities offered by the things themselves.
It was a matter of receiving what nature itself allowed, as if from its own hand. Now, by contrast, we are the ones to lay our hands
on things, attempting to extract everything possible from them while frequently ignoring or forgetting the reality in front of us.
Human beings and material objects no longer extend a friendly hand to one another; the relationship has become confrontational. This
has made it easy to accept the idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts
in technology. It is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth's goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed
dry beyond every limit. It is the false notion that "an infinite quantity of energy and resources are available, that it is possible
to renew them quickly, and that the negative effects of the exploitation of the natural order can be easily absorbed".[86]
107. It can be said that many problems of today's world stem from the tendency, at times unconscious, to make the method and aims
of science and technology an epistemological paradigm which shapes the lives of individuals and the workings of society. The effects
of imposing this model on reality as a whole, human and social, are seen in the deterioration of the environment, but this is just
one sign of a reductionism which affects every aspect of human and social life. We have to accept that technological products
are not neutral, for they create a framework which ends up conditioning lifestyles and shaping social possibilities along the lines
dictated by the interests of certain powerful groups. Decisions which may seem purely instrumental are in reality decisions about
the kind of society we want to build.
108. The idea of promoting a different cultural paradigm and employing technology as a mere instrument is nowadays inconceivable.
The technological paradigm has become so dominant that it would be difficult to do without its resources and even more difficult
to utilize them without being dominated by their internal logic. It has become countercultural to choose a lifestyle whose goals
are even partly independent of technology, of its costs and its power to globalize and make us all the same. Technology tends
to absorb everything into its ironclad logic, and those who are surrounded with technology "know full well that it moves forward
in the final analysis neither for profit nor for the well-being of the human race", that "in the most radical sense of the term power
is its motive – a lordship over all".[87]
As a result, "man seizes hold of the naked elements of both nature and human nature".[88]
Our capacity to make decisions, a more genuine freedom and the space for each one's alternative creativity are diminished.
109. The technocratic paradigm also tends to dominate economic and political life. The economy accepts every advance in technology
with a view to profit, without concern for its potentially negative impact on human beings. Finance overwhelms the real economy.
The lessons of the global financial crisis have not been assimilated, and we are learning all too slowly the lessons of environmental
deterioration. Some circles maintain that current economics and technology will solve all environmental problems, and argue, in popular
and non-technical terms, that the problems of global hunger and poverty will be resolved simply by market growth. They are less concerned
with certain economic theories which today scarcely anybody dares defend, than with their actual operation in the functioning of
the economy. They may not affirm such theories with words, but nonetheless support them with their deeds by showing no interest in
more balanced levels of production, a better distribution of wealth, concern for the environment and the rights of future generations.
Their behaviour shows that for them maximizing profits is enough. Yet by itself the market cannot guarantee integral human development
and social inclusion.[89]At the same time, we have "a sort of 'superdevelopment' of a wasteful and consumerist kind which forms an unacceptable contrast
with the ongoing situations of dehumanizing deprivation",[90]
while we are all too slow in developing economic institutions and social initiatives which can give the poor regular access to basic
resources. We fail to see the deepest roots of our present failures, which have to do with the direction, goals, meaning and social
implications of technological and economic growth.
110. The specialization which belongs to technology makes it difficult to see the larger picture. The fragmentation of knowledge
proves helpful for concrete applications, and yet it often leads to a loss of appreciation for the whole, for the relationships between
things, and for the broader horizon, which then becomes irrelevant. This very fact makes it hard to find adequate ways of solving
the more complex problems of today's world, particularly those regarding the environment and the poor; these problems cannot be dealt
with from a single perspective or from a single set of interests. A science which would offer solutions to the great issues would
necessarily have to take into account the data generated by other fields of knowledge, including philosophy and social ethics; but
this is a difficult habit to acquire today. Nor are there genuine ethical horizons to which one can appeal. Life gradually becomes
a surrender to situations conditioned by technology, itself viewed as the principal key to the meaning of existence. In the concrete
situation confronting us, there are a number of symptoms which point to what is wrong, such as environmental degradation, anxiety,
a loss of the purpose of life and of community living. Once more we see that "realities are more important than ideas".[91]
111. Ecological culture cannot be reduced to a series of urgent and partial responses to the immediate problems of pollution,
environmental decay and the depletion of natural resources. There needs to be a distinctive way of looking at things, a way of thinking,
policies, an educational programme, a lifestyle and a spirituality which together generate resistance to the assault of the technocratic
paradigm. Otherwise, even the best ecological initiatives can find themselves caught up in the same globalized logic. To seek only
a technical remedy to each environmental problem which comes up is to separate what is in reality interconnected and to mask the
true and deepest problems of the global system.
112. Yet we can once more broaden our vision. We have the freedom needed to limit and direct technology; we can put it at the
service of another type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral. Liberation from the dominant
technocratic paradigm does in fact happen sometimes, for example, when cooperatives of small producers adopt less polluting means
of production, and opt for a non-consumerist model of life, recreation and community. Or when technology is directed primarily to
resolving people's concrete problems, truly helping them live with more dignity and less suffering. Or indeed when the desire to
create and contemplate beauty manages to overcome reductionism through a kind of salvation which occurs in beauty and in those who
behold it. An authentic humanity, calling for a new synthesis, seems to dwell in the midst of our technological culture, almost unnoticed,
like a mist seeping gently beneath a closed door. Will the promise last, in spite of everything, with all that is authentic rising
up in stubborn resistance?
113. There is also the fact that people no longer seem to believe in a happy future; they no longer have blind trust in a better
tomorrow based on the present state of the world and our technical abilities. There is a growing awareness that scientific and technological
progress cannot be equated with the progress of humanity and history, a growing sense that the way to a better future lies elsewhere.
This is not to reject the possibilities which technology continues to offer us. But humanity has changed profoundly, and the accumulation
of constant novelties exalts a superficiality which pulls us in one direction. It becomes difficult to pause and recover depth
in life. If architecture reflects the spirit of an age, our megastructures and drab apartment blocks express the spirit of globalized
technology, where a constant flood of new products coexists with a tedious monotony. Let us refuse to resign ourselves to this, and
continue to wonder about the purpose and meaning of everything. Otherwise we would simply legitimate the present situation and need
new forms of escapism to help us endure the emptiness.
114. All of this shows the urgent need for us to move forward in a bold cultural revolution. Science and technology are not
neutral; from the beginning to the end of a process, various intentions and possibilities are in play and can take on distinct shapes.
Nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age, but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way, to appropriate
the positive and sustainable progress which has been made, but also to recover the values and the great goals swept away by our unrestrained
delusions of grandeur.
III. THE CRISIS AND EFFECTS OF MODERN ANTHROPOCENTRISM
115. Modern anthropocentrism has paradoxically ended up prizing technical thought over reality, since "the technological mind
sees nature as an insensate order, as a cold body of facts, as a mere 'given', as an object of utility, as raw material to be hammered
into useful shape; it views the cosmos similarly as a mere 'space' into which objects can be thrown with complete indifference".[92]
The intrinsic dignity of the world is thus compromised. When human beings fail to find their true place in this world, they misunderstand
themselves and end up acting against themselves: "Not only has God given the earth to man, who must use it with respect for the original
good purpose for which it was given, but, man too is God's gift to man. He must therefore respect the natural and moral structure
with which he has been endowed".[93]
116. Modernity has been marked by an excessive anthropocentrism which today, under another guise, continues to stand in the way
of shared understanding and of any effort to strengthen social bonds. The time has come to pay renewed attention to reality and the
limits it imposes; this in turn is the condition for a more sound and fruitful development of individuals and society. An inadequate
presentation of Christian anthropology gave rise to a wrong understanding of the relationship between human beings and the world.
Often, what was handed on was a Promethean vision of mastery over the world, which gave the impression that the protection of nature
was something that only the faint-hearted cared about. Instead, our "dominion" over the universe should be understood more properly
in the sense of responsible stewardship.[94]
117. Neglecting to monitor the harm done to nature and the environmental impact of our decisions is only the most striking sign
of a disregard for the message contained in the structures of nature itself. When we fail to acknowledge as part of reality the worth
of a poor person, a human embryo, a person with disabilities – to offer just a few examples – it becomes difficult to hear the cry
of nature itself; everything is connected. Once the human being declares independence from reality and behaves with absolute
dominion, the very foundations of our life begin to crumble, for "instead of carrying out his role as a cooperator with God
in the work of creation, man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature".[95]
118. This situation has led to a constant schizophrenia, wherein a technocracy which sees no intrinsic value in lesser beings
coexists with the other extreme, which sees no special value in human beings. But one cannot prescind from humanity. There can
be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself. There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology.
When the human person is considered as simply one being among others, the product of chance or physical determinism, then "our overall
sense of responsibility wanes".[96]
A misguided anthropocentrism need not necessarily yield to "biocentrism", for that would entail adding yet another imbalance, failing
to solve present problems and adding new ones. Human beings cannot be expected to feel responsibility for the world unless, at the
same time, their unique capacities of knowledge, will, freedom and responsibility are recognized and valued.
119. Nor must the critique of a misguided anthropocentrism underestimate the importance of interpersonal relations. If the
present ecological crisis is one small sign of the ethical, cultural and spiritual crisis of modernity, we cannot presume to heal
our relationship with nature and the environment without healing all fundamental human relationships. Christian thought sees
human beings as possessing a particular dignity above other creatures; it thus inculcates esteem for each person and respect for
others. Our openness to others, each of whom is a "thou" capable of knowing, loving and entering into dialogue, remains the source
of our nobility as human persons. A correct relationship with the created world demands that we not weaken this social dimension
of openness to others, much less the transcendent dimension of our openness to the "Thou" of God. Our relationship with the environment
can never be isolated from our relationship with others and with God. Otherwise, it would be nothing more than romantic individualism
dressed up in ecological garb, locking us into a stifling immanence.
120. Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion.
How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be,
if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? "If personal and social sensitivity
towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away".[97]
121. We need to develop a new synthesis capable of overcoming the false arguments of recent centuries. Christianity, in fidelity
to its own identity and the rich deposit of truth which it has received from Jesus Christ, continues to reflect on these issues in
fruitful dialogue with changing historical situations. In doing so, it reveals its eternal newness.[98]
Practical relativism
122. A misguided anthropocentrism leads to a misguided lifestyle. In the Apostolic Exhortation
Evangelii Gaudium, I noted that the practical relativism typical of our age is "even more dangerous than doctrinal relativism".[99]
When human beings place themselves at the centre, they give absolute priority to immediate convenience and all else becomes relative.
Hence we should not be surprised to find, in conjunction with the omnipresent technocratic paradigm and the cult of unlimited human
power, the rise of a relativism which sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one's own immediate interests. There is a logic
in all this whereby different attitudes can feed on one another, leading to environmental degradation and social decay.
123. The culture of relativism is the same disorder which drives one person to take advantage of another, to treat others
as mere objects, imposing forced labour on them or enslaving them to pay their debts. The same kind of thinking leads to the sexual
exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests. It is also the mindset of those who
say: Let us allow the invisible forces of the market to regulate the economy, and consider their impact on society and nature as
collateral damage. In the absence of objective truths or sound principles other than the satisfaction of our own desires and immediate
needs, what limits can be placed on human trafficking, organized crime, the drug trade, commerce in blood diamonds and the fur of
endangered species? Is it not the same relativistic logic which justifies buying the organs of the poor for resale or use in experimentation,
or eliminating children because they are not what their parents wanted? This same "use and throw away" logic generates so much waste,
because of the disordered desire to consume more than what is really necessary. We should not think that political efforts or the
force of law will be sufficient to prevent actions which affect the environment because, when the culture itself is corrupt and objective
truth and universally valid principles are no longer upheld, then laws can only be seen as arbitrary impositions or obstacles to
be avoided.
The need to protect employment
124. Any approach to an integral ecology, which by definition does not exclude human beings, needs to take account of the value
of labour, as Saint John Paul II wisely noted in his Encyclical
Laborem Exercens. According to the biblical account of creation, God placed man and woman in the garden he had created (cf.
Gen 2:15) not only to preserve it ("keep") but also to make it fruitful ("till"). Labourers and craftsmen thus "maintain the
fabric of the world" (Sir 38:34). Developing the created world in a prudent way is the best way of caring for it, as this
means that we ourselves become the instrument used by God to bring out the potential which he himself inscribed in things: "The Lord
created medicines out of the earth, and a sensible man will not despise them" (Sir 38:4).
125. If we reflect on the proper relationship between human beings and the world around us, we see the need for a correct understanding
of work; if we talk about the relationship between human beings and things, the question arises as to the meaning and purpose of
all human activity. This has to do not only with manual or agricultural labour but with any activity involving a modification of
existing reality, from producing a social report to the design of a technological development. Underlying every form of work is a
concept of the relationship which we can and must have with what is other than ourselves. Together with the awe-filled contemplation
of creation which we find in Saint Francis of Assisi, the Christian spiritual tradition has also developed a rich and balanced understanding
of the meaning of work, as, for example, in the life of Blessed Charles de Foucauld and his followers.
126. We can also look to the great tradition of monasticism. Originally, it was a kind of flight from the world, an escape from
the decadence of the cities. The monks sought the desert, convinced that it was the best place for encountering the presence of God.
Later, Saint Benedict of Norcia proposed that his monks live in community, combining prayer and spiritual reading with manual labour
(ora et labora). Seeing manual labour as spiritually meaningful proved revolutionary. Personal growth and sanctification came
to be sought in the interplay of recollection and work. This way of experiencing work makes us more protective and respectful of
the environment; it imbues our relationship to the world with a healthy sobriety.
127. We are convinced that "man is the source, the focus and the aim of all economic and social life".[100]
Nonetheless, once our human capacity for contemplation and reverence is impaired, it becomes easy for the meaning of work to be misunderstood.[101]
We need to remember that men and women have "the capacity to improve their lot, to further their moral growth and to develop their
spiritual endowments".[102]
Work should be the setting for this rich personal growth, where many aspects of life enter into play: creativity, planning for the
future, developing our talents, living out our values, relating to others, giving glory to God. It follows that, in the reality
of today's global society, it is essential that "we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone",[103]
no matter the limited interests of business and dubious economic reasoning.
128. We were created with a vocation to work. The goal should not be that technological progress increasingly replace human
work, for this would be detrimental to humanity. Work is a necessity, part of the meaning of life on this earth, a path to growth,
human development and personal fulfilment. Helping the poor financially must always be a provisional solution in the face of pressing
needs. The broader objective should always be to allow them a dignified life through work. Yet the orientation of the economy
has favoured a kind of technological progress in which the costs of production are reduced by laying off workers and replacing them
with machines. This is yet another way in which we can end up working against ourselves. The loss of jobs also has a negative
impact on the economy "through the progressive erosion of social capital: the network of relationships of trust, dependability, and
respect for rules, all of which are indispensable for any form of civil coexistence".[104]
In other words, "human costs always include economic costs, and economic dysfunctions always involve human costs".[105]
To stop investing in people, in order to gain greater short-term financial gain, is bad business for society.
129. In order to continue providing employment, it is imperative to promote an economy which favours productive diversity
and business creativity. For example, there is a great variety of small-scale food production systems which feed the greater part
of the world's peoples, using a modest amount of land and producing less waste, be it in small agricultural parcels, in orchards
and gardens, hunting and wild harvesting or local fishing. Economies of scale, especially in the agricultural sector, end up forcing
smallholders to sell their land or to abandon their traditional crops. Their attempts to move to other, more diversified, means
of production prove fruitless because of the difficulty of linkage with regional and global markets, or because the infrastructure
for sales and transport is geared to larger businesses. Civil authorities have the right and duty to adopt clear and firm measures
in support of small producers and differentiated production. To ensure economic freedom from which all can effectively benefit,
restraints occasionally have to be imposed on those possessing greater resources and financial power. To claim economic freedom while
realconditions bar many people from actual access to it, and while possibilities for employment continue to shrink, is to
practise a doublespeak which brings politics into disrepute. Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving
our world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the areas in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs
as an essential part of its service to the common good.
New biological technologies
130. In the philosophical and theological vision of the human being and of creation which I have presented, it is clear that the
human person, endowed with reason and knowledge, is not an external factor to be excluded. While human intervention on plants and
animals is permissible when it pertains to the necessities of human life, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that
experimentation on animals is morally acceptable only "if it remains within reasonable limits [and] contributes to caring for or
saving human lives".[106]
The Catechism firmly states that human power has limits and that "it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer
or die needlessly".[107]
All such use and experimentation "requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation".[108]
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
